A reader struggles with despair over quarrelsome Catholics

Long time reader. Maybe you've addressed the issue, but I was wondering if you had any insight on a potential source of despair - infighting between groups of Catholics on forums and blogs.

I see lots of references to folks thinking Satan worked his way into the church and that only a small remnant will end up being saved. That seems counter to the gospel message to me, and it seems difficult for me to believe that God would want to make it difficult and obscure (e.g, knowing that you had to somehow be more like a FSSP/SSPX type of Catholic to truly be saved.

I came back to the faith when I was 17 (I'm now 34) and I feel like in the good old days, when I was really only aware of blogs like yours, that I never had these kinds of concerns. I just went to Mass, assisted in the parish where folks wanted me to help out and felt pretty good about the faith.

Just wondering if you had any thoughts on this.

God Bless ( and keep up the fantastic work )

Thank you for your kind words. Everything that follows should be read in the spirit of "One patient in the cancer ward to another" not "doctor to patient".

I hear you. And I am, I think, often part of the problem. So mea culpa for that.

It's a struggle, and one I often lose, to find some other way to reply to nasty people with something besides more nastiness. There are lots of easy justifications for it: "I am standing tall for the TRVTH!" is a popular one. Also, particularly emotionally rewarding to me personally is "I'm defending the defenseless!" Lets me land all sorts of retaliatory punches while casting admiring glances in the mirror at my Knight in Shining Armor self. And, of course, "I'm part of the Faithful Remnant fighting the invading horde of sinners" is also emotionally gratifying to certain personalities. We all have our poison we enjoy and different personalities like different ones. I'm no exception.

And yet, "See how these Catholics hate one another" remains an obvious scandal and "He started it" a lousy excuse for continuing it. "I'm a sinner too" followed closely by "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner" is an excellent way to start breaking the cycle (and start again every day since repenting, like quitting smoking, is done not once but thousands of times). Indeed, it is the only way to start.

The thing is, we have to get past just starting.

Part of the problem lies right there: getting past starting. In situations of conflict, our attempts at repentance will seldom be met with prayerful support from our enemies. Rather, in the world (and, alas, among many Catholics) the slightest failure after attempted repentance--not to mention multiple failures--will be greeted not with the mercy of Jesus, picking us up and encouraging us on our way, but with a gleeful, "I told you he was lying with that whole mea culpa thing! He'll never change. He has no intention of changing."

Of course, the reality is that change is hard and takes a long time. Hence the whole "70X7" command from Jesus. The norm, not the exception, is that habits of sin will take years, decades, a lifetime, and perhaps a good hitch in Purgatory before they are extirpated or redeemed. One's enemies are seldom interested in that fact and are all too eager to see the glass half empty rather than half full when we attempt virtue and fail.

If we look to our enemies to tell us who we are, we will never find Christ. It is hate, not love, that is blind. That's why Jesus tells us we have to forgive even our worst enemies perpetually: not only for their sake, but for ours. The moment we start to want our enemies to be as bad as possible so that we can feel good about hating them is the moment we have started saying that our own sins, not Jesus, are what name us.

(Funny story: A Brit friend happened on a fundamentalist website with an "Ask the Webmaster" feature. Some poor soul visiting the site made the mistake of mentioning that they heard the Book of Daniel was composed not long after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. It's a reasonable conjecture and one many scholars share, though there's room for give and take on the question. The webmaster shot back "THAT IS A LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!" My British friend was amused by that in a way that only a massively understated Brit can be. I think he may even have smiled.)

Anyway, we love to press Important Things into the service of ego. And God, money, power, pleasure and honor are the Big Five idols. Yes, God can be an idol when our egos get hold of him. Merely because God is the proper object of worship while the other four are idols does not in the slightest mean that God and the things of God can't be, paradoxically, idols too. People press gang God (or rather a fictional dummy they've labeled "God") into the service of the other four idols every day. That's why Paul had to gripe at the Corinthians, "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Co 1:13). These days, we might just as easily ask some Catholics (in the fine words of reader Tony Layne), "Was the Latin Mass crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Vatican II?" The thing is, God (unlike real idols) tends to strongly resist being reduced to an idol and an accessory to the ego. He fights back by, among other things, inspiring righteous anger in our hearts when we see such a perversion. Sometimes, he turns up in the form of an angry up-country rabbi flipping over tables and shouting "Woe to you!"

When we see people do unjust things, we therefore get very angry--and rightly so. Indeed, the first secret of understanding forgiveness is that it presumes anything between annoyance and skull-splitting rage at injustice. Somebody has done something wrong, blast it! And they deserve to get kicked down the stairs as the royal jerks they are. They didn't "mean well" and they knew exactly what they were doing.

In such situations I. like you and anybody, face a straightforward temptation: I can't stand the people I can't stand. Emotionally, I cannot find a single thread of connection to them. And they, as a general rule, hate my living guts too--or at least they often act that way. That's why they did that jerk thing I'm so furious about. So being the garrulous Mick I am, I respond in kind (usually with words since this is the interwebz we're talking about) and tell myself I'm exacting "justice" or whatever by reaming them out, mocking them, and generally badmouthing them.

But as you note, to people outside the Bubble of the conflict, none of this does much beside act as a temptation to despair. It just looks like the argle bargle of egos and angers clashing, which it usually is and not the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness starring Me as Savior of the Internet.

So what do we do? Well, as one of the cancer patients and emphatically not one of the doctors on the ward, my own inspirations have come in two forms. First, was the realization (still very imperfectly lived) that people want butter a lot more than they want guns. So the command given to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "defend my sheep". As somebody who is always a sucker for "I'm defending the defenseless" when I'm indulging my anger, that drew me up short when the Holy Spirit hit me between the eyes with it last Christmas. But it's been dripping into my bloodstream with each Eucharist for six months anyway and I'm becoming more aware of just how crummy I am at measuring up to it.

Second, I have been listening to and watching a lot of Fr. Robert Barron's videos and homilies of late and one theme he returns to again and again is Jesus' teaching on non-violence:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt 5:38–48)

That much-ignored and explained-away passage still constitutes a deadly ultimatum to a huge part of how all of us--and especially I--conduct ourselves in the world. Really responding with non-violence--including verbal non-violence and a blessing to vile, nasty people is tougher then getting off meth, particularly since meth doesn't follow you around trying to pick fights with you as you try to walk away, threatening people you love, and devising ways to suck you back into a fight you are itching to rejoin. But our enemies do that.

So merely avoiding conflict is not enough. We have to, as Fr. Barron says of Jesus, be willing to let the sins and abuses of others "wash over" us (note the baptismal image) and respond with love and not mere smoldering silence like a volcano approaching the explosion point. We have to be (somehow) willing to take all their insults and blows, deserved and undeserved, refer them to the One whose abuses were all undeserved (including, especially, the ones I rained down on him with my sins) and then return a blessing where we positively itch to return a devastating curse. It's not about pretending enemies are not enemies and jerks are not jerks and people in error are not in error. It's about clearly recognizing all that--and opting to bless and desire their good anyway. Doesn't mean we can't speak the truth in reply. Indeed, we are sometimes obliged to. But it does mean we have to speak it in love and not as a fig leaf for smashing them like bugs.

My own course in that cancer treatment has only barely begun and I still skip my meds far too often. But that is, in fact, the only treatment the New Testament offers, so we have the option of attempting it, or dying of the cancer of sinful unforgiveness. Nothing so wonderfully concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging.

So we wind up, all us cancer patients dying of sin, in the place where Christ wants us: forced to love, pray for, and bear with one another here in the ward since the most we can brag about is who is least terminal.

Unless, of course, a dope like me really gets the hang of things and starts providing more butter than guns to hungry lambs. Then we might--I might--discover a new way of being that radically transforms us and our relationship to both God and neighbor. We see glimpses that it is really possible in the saints. Now it's up to us to cooperate with grace like they do and see if we can pull it off too. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy--not endless barren rehearsals of what's wrong with your enemies, or the Church, or the Seattle Mariners or Obama or the GOP--are the recommended paths for anybody who has a mind to go that route. Astute readers will note that I'm lousy at remembering this. Welcome to the Cancer Ward.

Another suggestion for avoiding despair: remember that the Church exists precisely as a hospital for sinners, so the fact that all us Catholics are inside it bickering and not outside it, cutting each other's throats is good. A Church that is big enough to include That Jerk Over There is, thank God, big enough to include slobs like me and you. Relatedly, recall that no small part of our anger over other people in the Church is that they fail to reflect to us the full image of Christ. In short, they let us down because they don't do what Christ would have done perfectly. We are expecting perfect love, mercy, courage, grace, generosity, etc. and instead find very imperfect reflections of this, so we get disappointed and angry. Yet no small part of what we get angry about is that others fail to see how hard we are trying to obey Christ and instead only tell us about our faults and failings. In short, we want others to judge us on our intentions while we judge them on their actions. The Golden Rule is "Do as would be done by". So instead, try giving thanks for the good intentions of your neighbor when he falls short. It can do wonders.

Finally, spend far more time in the real world than in cyberspace. The Church in cyberspace is an oddly disembodied thing, and therefore participates only partly in the fullness of the Church. It is the Church of Word, not sacrament, since the closest it can get to the Eucharist is a picture and everybody on line is a sort of disincarnate ghost. It's a place where the gospel needs to be, but it is always the agora and never the sanctuary. Hug your local parish close and get to know the people there. They are your lifeline to the Church as Christ intended it in all its fleshy incarnate reality.

Comments

@Stilbelieve: What you’ve described is true for the majority of those you refer to. Compartmentalization re the gospel and the evil of abortion seems to be the ticket for many in the pew these days. And for clergy who fail to underscore the evil this is,—they bear a greater responsibility. That abortion is such a horrible, vile, ungodly and murderous act, many clergy do not have the stomach to preach from the altar describing how gruesome and wicked this act is on a bright and sunshine-filled Sunday morning. The larger political gain has always been a higher priority for liberal Democrats. This in no way absolves socially moderate Republicans like President Ford and his airhead wife Betty. But how else can any follower of Jesus vote 2x for a man who has advocated having no problem with partial-birth abortion? This single issue alone provides reason enough to run from any politician despite what else he supports.

Those who support abortion (including partial-birth abortion) literally have no fear of God. As the arrogant Pharaoh told Moses: “Who is the Lord that I should obey Him?”

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2014 9:10 PM (EDT):

“I am a great believer in the concept attributed to my friend, Cardinal Bernardin: ‘consistent ethic of life.’ The only problem I see in it is that many people who pretend to believe in it really don’t. They pick and choose, and virtually every issue EXCEPT (his emphasis) abortion is given priority. They see relationships between and among every evil in the world, except between such evils and contempt for human life that marks the abortion industry.

“I must be obsessed. I see what Mother Teresa sees in abortion and what she called it in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech - the greatest obstacle to peace in the world.”

What a coincidence, I see it in the same way as the author of those words does - John Cardinal O’Connor Archbishop of New York in a book of his writings for Catholic New York entitled “On Being Catholic.”

I also believe such thinking, as he described, is prevalent in the minds of so many Catholics, including clergy, from where I think he obtained his observation. That kind of “thinking” enables them to continue to endorse with their names and support the very organization responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land…the Democratic Party. Catholics are the largest single group in the Democratic Party, giving it the electoral power to keep the murder of babies legal for the past 41 years, with no end in sight. All those Catholics have to do if they really are “pro-life” is to resign from that party and stop supporting it. They don’t have to join any other party to be able to vote, they just have to stop “feeding the beast” if the want to be consistent with what they profess to believe and pray for. They ought to do it for another important reason – to save their own souls.

Posted by Bert on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2014 7:53 AM (EDT):

Theresa H:
A person committing a public scandal should make a PUBLIC confession and PUBLICALLY renounce their previous scandal; otherwise, they are still committing a public scandal and their “personal” confession meant nothing. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Posted by Theresa H on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2014 6:04 PM (EDT):

Jesus told us not to be scandalized by those who commit public scandal (Lk 17:1)—which “is sure to come.” My understanding is that Catholics of notoriety who commit public scandal should not be admitted to Holy Communion, but the burden is primarily on the person committing the scandal. I’m also not sure a Eucharistic Minister would know what to do….. (After all, the person could also have gone to confession the day before!)

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 4, 2014 12:35 AM (EDT):

C.R. lol. I needed that for the start of the Independence Day weekend!

Posted by Bert on Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 7:35 AM (EDT):

About my “‘typical’ Republican”: I didn’t mean much by the word “typical”; I guess I mean someone who generally follows the party platform as opposed to a Democrat who follows their party platform. I don’t claim to be good with words and, speaking of fruit, I’m not sure this discussion is producing fruit. My main point is about comparing the issues (which some refer to as ignoring issues).

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 1:15 AM (EDT):

@Stilbelieve: Bishop Tobin of the Diocese of Providence, RI came to the same conclusion following the events of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.—
Tobin is quoted as calling the issue of abortion “the linchpin” and “foundation” of all discussions of the human and moral condition. Further, the Democratic Party platform in 2012 endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. And Bishop John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, said those planks “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” —
I could understand the DNC celebrating Georgetown’s own Sandra Fluke with a prime time address. After all, Ms Fluke said she requires 3K annually for taxpayers to subsidize her contraceptive needs. However, when Caroline Kennedy was given an opportunity to voice her disapproval of the the pro-abortion and partial birth abortion plank, she took a pass in her prime address and was rewarded with the Ambassador to Japan post.—
The Vatican document “Worthiness to Receive Communion” states that politicians “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” should be counseled over their opposition and, if they remain obstinate, denied the Eucharist under Canon 915 of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. To my knowledge, only the Bishop of Denver has publicly said he will deny Nancy Pelosi Holy Communion. Pelosi’s hometown San Francisco AB Cordileone has yet to do so.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 12:23 AM (EDT):

Casting Crowns - “‘That’s a rather odd statement. What is a ‘typical’ Republican?”

I thought that also, as well as what does Republican have to do with anything we are discussing. My interest was trying to understand how any “faithful” church-going Catholic could, in this day and age, ever be endorsing with their name and support the historical pro-abortion, and now pro-same sex “marriage,” anti-Constitutional First Amendment of Freedom of Religion, and anti-Catholic Church Democratic Party.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 12:15 AM (EDT):

It’s sad and disappointing that a supposed “popular Catholic writer and speaker,” and God knows we need them, is unwilling to answer specific questions challenging his opinions without delving into biased critical diatribes swerving away from a dialogue attempting to seek the truth. It makes one wonder if he limits his writing and speaking engagements to similar minded audiences.

Posted by Bert on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 5:40 PM (EDT):

We all do it to at least some degree but Mark’s “Precious Feet pins” statement and his belief that “anti-abortion” people “ignore” rather than compare things is too much.

Posted by Ronald King on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 5:14 PM (EDT):

Stilbelieve states “That is why they can do it non stop, because they don’t know they are doing it.” I suggest reflecting on this.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 4:46 PM (EDT):

Ronald King said this about “projection” - “You could be doing that without knowing it.”

That’s right. That is why they can do it non stop, because they don’t know they are doing it.

Posted by Ronald King on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 11:52 AM (EDT):

stilbelieve, “What Mark is doing, I think, is using “projection.” “Projection” is “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or objects; esp : the externalization of blame, guilt or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.” (Websters New Collegiate Dictionary) This is a well know behavior of Democrats. That is why they can use calumny with no problem against their rivals even though it can be in most cases a mortal sin against the 8th Commandment”
You could be doing that without knowing it.

@Bert to Stilbelieve: “it is like you if your comparison of the issues leads you to vote for a typical republican. —
That’s a rather odd statement. What is a “typical” Republican?

Posted by Ronald King on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 11:41 AM (EDT):

Take a break and watch some baseball. Mark, How about those M’s?!

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 11:32 AM (EDT):

Bert - “We Catholics are quarrelsome and I guess we can’t help ourselves.”

I don’t mind a good “quarrel” as long as it is seeking the truth. But all the accusations Mark is ascribing to me and “people like me,” is completely ignoring statements from Cardinal Bernardin’s own biography alluding to the history of his having to come up with his “seamless garment. He wasn’t getting opposition from pro-lifers, he was getting push-back from Catholics who loved being Democrat and didn’t want to change, who felt offended that their “caring for others” wasn’t getting recognized in “pro-life” sermons and talks. They were feeling guilty, and they didn’t like it.

What Mark is doing, I think, is using “projection.” “Projection” is “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or objects; esp : the externalization of blame, guilt or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.” (Websters New Collegiate Dictionary) This is a well know behavior of Democrats. That is why they can use calumny with no problem against their rivals even though it can be in most cases a mortal sin against the 8th Commandment.

Somehow, he is able to blame us pro-lifers for abortion remaining the law of the land. He thinks this is a Republican vrs. Democrat issue. It’s not. It’s a Catholic vrs Democrat issue, only. If a church going Catholic is still in the Democratic Party today, laity or clergy, and there are a lot of both, they are not “pro-life” no matter what they think or say. It has nothing to do with being Republican or not.

You notice he won’t give me an answer to a simple question - whether he would end torture or abortion if he had to power to end one or the other, but not both.

Posted by Bert on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2014 8:29 AM (EDT):

Stilbelieve: Mark Shea wrote to you, “...the person you are describing is nothing like me.”
I think he is saying it is like you if your comparison of the issues leads you to vote for a typical republican. At best he thinks you are “ignoring” the issues he listed.

I think we’re wasting our time at this point. We Catholics are quarrelsome and I guess we can’t help ourselves.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 11:29 PM (EDT):

Mark, read your comment to me, again. “For the obvious reason constantly demonstrated by people like you. Because in isolating abortion from the rest of the Church’s teaching, it then became an idol which allegedly “prolife” Catholics then used, as you do, to denigrate and ignore much of the rest of the Church’s teaching, resulting in legions of Catholics who are no longer prolife, but merely anti-abortion, cheering for unjust wars that slaughter 100,000 people, torture, the death penalty, mindless defenses of reckless gun culture, contempt for the poor and now contempt for the Holy Father. Opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world.’

As for what you said in your last comment to me, the person you are describing is nothing like me. How can you fabric such a person and ascribe that person to be me? You’re a Christian apologist? Where do you have evidence there are people like you described as being traditional pro-lifers?

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 7:12 PM (EDT):

Please learn to read. I didn’t say being prolife is an idol. I said that separating opposition to abortion from the rest of the Church’s teaching about the dignity of human life is to make opposition to abortion an idol. Many so-called “prolife” people are, in fact, merely “anti-abortion”—and only anti-abortion when the victim does not threaten GOP access to power. But they are not prolife. They have, like you, no problem with torturing prisoners, or unjust war, or ignoring the Church on the death penalty or punishing poor families for having “too many” children while also threatening them with hell for using contraception. (Understand, I oppose the use of contraception too. But I also realized that in doing so, I accept responsibility for helping struggling families who live by the Church’s teaching and don’t just cut them loose and call them parasites.) The majority of “prolife” Catholics are, in my experience, happy to ignore the Church on many issues just so long as they talk only about the “non-negotiables”. Your arguments typify this mindset.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 7:02 PM (EDT):

Mark, how can ignore facts right before your eyes and come up with the excuses to blame others than the ones who created this rotten tree, I cannot understand. Explain how I being pro-life causes Catholic priest and laymen on the front lines to remain or become Democrats some 41 years AFTER Roe v Wade? How do I make church-going Catholics elect for the first time a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever; not only once, but twice with the second time occurring after he endorses same-sex marriage and attacks the Church directly? How do real pro-life Catholics cause their Catholic brothers and sisters, including clergy, to do that?”

“Because in isolating abortion from the rest of the Church’s teaching, it then became an idol which allegedly ‘prolife’ Catholics then used, as you do, to denigrate and ignore much of the rest of the Church’s teaching…”

I didn’t create “pro-life,” the bishops did, 11 years BEFORE their “seamless garment” was ever thought of or heard of. If “pro-life” was an “idol,” then the bishops made it so, not the believers who were following Church teaching and God’s laws, especially those who were Democrats all their lives, like me, and chose my Catholic faith and teaching OVER my feeling of being superior to those “selfish” Republicans. I sense you have a great big feeling of being superior to others; and for some reason it extends to your brothers and sisters that aren’t as perfected as you in practicing the faith., people you don’t even know, like me.

Your problem, and the problem with the Church in the U.S. is the closed mindedness of Catholic Democrats. Take Catholic Democrats out of the voting equation, and a Constitutional Right-to-Life Amendment would have be passed DECADES ago. Tens of millions of babies and young children and adults would be alive today; plus same-sex “marriage” would only be talked about in hush tones in dark closets and corners of homosexual night clubs, and any politician who tried to dictate something to the bishops about birth control would have found themselves thrown out of office by the people.

No, Mark, don’t blame me. Blame Catholic Democrats for picking and choosing what they are going to believe and act on. That’s what the bishops decided to allow them to do rather than to become the Shepherds Christ called them to be. It’s not the first time Church leaders took things into their own hand. The “seamless garment” was not from the Holy Spirit; no, not from the Holy Spirit in a long shot. Just look at the fruit.

So, tell me; if you could stop one or the other of torture or abortion, which one would you chose?

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 4:12 PM (EDT):

“Why would that be “troubling” to him?”

For the obvious reason constantly demonstrated by people like you. Because in isolating abortion from the rest of the Church’s teaching, it then became an idol which allegedly “prolife” Catholics then used, as you do, to denigrate and ignore much of the rest of the Church’s teaching, resulting in legions of Catholics who are no longer prolife, but merely anti-abortion, cheering for unjust wars that slaughter 100,000 people, torture, the death penalty, mindless defenses of reckless gun culture, contempt for the poor and now contempt for the Holy Father. Opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 2:58 PM (EDT):

——————————————————————————-
Mark - Another question I have ever since learning that Bernardin had been “troubled by what appeared to be the isolation of the anti-abortion question from other pro-life issues.” (the biography, “Cardinal Bernardin - Easing conflicts - and battling for the soul of American Catholicism”)

Why would that be “troubling” to him? Those other issues never were called “pro-life” before. “Pro-life” was a name of a movement that rose up in response to a specific thing, the opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which ended legal protection for the unborn by the court’s striking down all state laws prohibiting abortion. What could have bothered a Cardinal shepherding the Archdiocese of Chicago so much that he was driven to find a way to weave all kinds of other issues, that did not involve the murder of unborn babies, nor required a Constitutional Amendment to correct, into a garment to be worn by Catholics?

A clue might be in the admission that: “In addition, the pro-life activities of the bishops would founder if they could not be made more appealing to the vast array of priests and others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work. A more cohesive and consistent position that recognized a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, would energize the priests, clergy, and laypeople in direct contract with the Catholic population in a positive way (why was the wholesale murder of unborn babies not enough of a reason to “energize” these “front-line” Catholics?). Not only would this move gain greater support(why ‘greater support?’) from Catholics and others but it would keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors (what was so wrong with ‘right wing conservatives’ being pro-life?). The latter, in the judgment of many (who are these “many?”), maintained a narrow focus that excluded linkage with any other issues, thus alienating large numbers of people (who?) who, although pro-life in their convictions (what does that mean?), were convinced that the problem had to be placed in a richer context of moral concerns (what “problem” and why involve other issues?). Such people felt, for example, that you could not be against abortion without being against activities, some of them government sponsored, that endangered innocent civilians in the cause of destabilizing central American governments.” (from “Cardinal Bernardin” biography). (Who is having all these concerns, and why should the bishops be concerned about them?)

What do you think the answers are to these questions?

I’ll tell you what I think; I think all these people with concerns are Catholics - politicians, priest, laymen - who are all Democrats and don’t want to stop being Democrats even to save the unborn. I think their whining and complaining to him all these years, since Roe v Wade, is the reason he thought “the pro-life activities of the bishops would founder” l.e., “collapse.” It would collapse because of those who were still Democrats, (which was the majority), would feel pressure to have to leave the Democrat Party (from which they get their self-identity) in order to support the pro-life movement to pass a Constitutional RTL Amendment- and they didn’t want to leave their party. Somewhere in all of that was a thinking that they were being told to support the Republican Party, which in time adopted a pro-life plank to their platform. Those Catholics, particularly the politicians, and big money donors, blamed the bishops for this happening - because it was the bishops who started the pro-life movement in the first place. That created a conundrum for them - either tell those Catholics, including the clergy, to “man-up” and do what is right, i.e., obey God’s law on choosing life over death, and do not murder (the 5th Commandment), or find a way to allow Catholics to remain Democrats without their thinking they are responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law of the land.

My concern for pursuing this investigation on how we got to where we are
some 41 years post Roe v Wade, without much progress, is prompted first by my concern for the unborn and what their being murdered is doing to our society; but now, as important, is what it is doing to all those Catholic souls who are failing to live a righteous life because of the importance of their being Democrats - then to being “just” Catholics. Cardinal Bernardin and the bishops’ “Seamless Garment,” i.e.,“a consistent ethic of life” is responsible for their remaining in and endorsing with their name the Democratic pro-abortion Party; and now, thanks to them, the same-sex “marriage Party, and the anti-freedom of religion Party, and the anti-Catholic Church Party.

I ask, where is the fruit of the “Seamless Garment” the past 31 years? I’ve just identified some of the rot that has come out of it which is going to result in those Catholic Democrats being asked to line up on the left side of Jesus when he returns. Please, save your own souls, by saving the unborn - God’s greatest gift - life, and remove your names from the Democratic Party to save your eternal life with Him. You do not want to hear His final words to you to be - “I never knew you.” And don’t think I’m telling to be Republicans, I’m not, just “stop feeding the beast” - stop being members and supporters of the Democratic Party until they change their positions on these intrinsic evils.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 12:18 PM (EDT):

@Stilbelieve: You mentioned “electoral” power. For most (but not all) politicians, there is a relentless pursuit to maintain control and stay in office. How interesting that in the city of St. Francis (mostly Catholic), Nancy Pelosi is repeatedly re-elected by 80% of the vote. However, she is very conscious to always have a scheduling conflict or be on WDC business when the SF Gay Pride Day Parade occurs so that no photos or video can be used nationally linking her with her support of homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.—
In 2008, polling shows Obama having received 54% of the Catholic vote nationally. In 2012, he received 53% despite the Obama-(Biden who identifies as “Catholic”) pro gay marriage endorsement. Clearly, even the HHS mandate requiring religious institutions to comply really didn’t matter to half of Catholic voters.—
Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Providence, RI seemed to sum it up best following the 2012 Democratic Convention when he said after witnessing the pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage stance of the DNC “he was unwilling to be associated structurally with that group, in terms of abortion and NARAL and Planned Parenthood and [the] same-sex marriage agenda and cultural destruction.”—
Furthermore, Bishop Tobin stated he was “profoundly disappointed” that many Catholic politicians in the state of Rhode Island “abandoned ship” on the issue of gay marriage. “This was a critical issue and they let us down,” he added.—
We can only deduce there are a lot of people *physically* inside the church and outside the church who identify as Catholic. People who actually follow Christ, however, are a whole different segment.—
The parable illustrating the separation of wheat from the tares is an important one because the tares do not only exist outside the church. Likewise, leaven also is never seen in Scripture as a positive. Moreover, leaven can rise up within the body of believers. We are seeing that especially now with apostate Christian churches and with apostate Catholics who profess Christ, but deny the gospel. When Jesus said “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (the church) we should not be concerned over attacks from outside. The actual attack is coming from the inside in the form of tares and the leaven.—
If Christ is not the primacy of who and all we are, something is wrong.
Catholics or Protestants voting for officeholders supporting abortion and gay marriage,—THIS ? . . . is how we honor the Lord? Paul says it best in Romans “they have exchanged the truth for a lie.”

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 10:55 AM (EDT):

Typo error corrections. I wrote: “If they would have done that, then they would be using ‘maximum determination’ and the pro-abortion party would have lost their ELECTOR POWER to keep abortion legal, because without the Catholic vote they wouldn’t get elected.”

That should have been “ELECTORAL POWER.”

Posted by Ronald King on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 9:13 AM (EDT):

Violence is the major issue which contaminates every aspect of human interaction.

Posted by Bert on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 7:19 AM (EDT):

So, according to Mark, what we think is weighing issues is made up of mostly “ignoring” things.

The Dems are making it REALLY easy to “ignore” things when abortion for 9 months and homosexual marriage are specifically named in the their party platform and, along with the HHS mandate and contraception, have been rammed down our throats recently. No issues as simple, obvious, primary, large in scope, and wrong are listed, in or pushed by the GOP. Caring for the poor and needy does not have to be done by the government and the more that the government gets involved, the more conflicts we run into like the HHS mandate and adoption by homosexual parents.

Are we still “ignoring” things if we stick to the simple, obvious, primary “voting” stances of the Catholic church (abortion, contraception, and homosexual marriage) plus the HHS mandate and contraception or do we need more?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 12:54 AM (EDT):

In this discussion I might add there is the official position of the church handed down through the USCCB. The reality, though, is that since the great majority of Catholics in the pew only receive their information from the pulpit on Sunday or through a Pastor’s notes in the Sunday bulletin, we all know clergy are not immune from injecting their own bent on many issues. This is where official church positions are often fused or distorted by personal views coming from the pulpit which influence Catholic attitudes. —
Next time after Mass, just ask someone what the Seamless Garment ethic issued by Cardinal Bernadin is and they won’t have any clue at all. It’s no wonder a Catholic might be pro-life but in support of the death penalty.—
Here’s an example of what Stilbelieve wrote concerning the battle over a RTL amendment. In the 1980’s, the USCCB could have allied with the Moral Majority on this one issue. The RTL was and is not a matter of finding agreement in dogmatic Catholic teaching or over the CCC. Moreover, because Jerry Falwell was the face of the Moral Majority (and a Baptist) the USCCB just could not bring themselves to come together in unity over this vital issue. And frankly, over the years I’ve heard several remarks during homilies by different Priests who seem more like front men for the DNC. I do not judge all clergy by such comments. But if there is a problem with what official church teaching is (and how it should be understood), the blame rests at the local parish and diocesan level. Snarky comments and homiletic editorializing over the misguided theological positions of Billy Graham, Joel Osteen or how cranky talk show host Mark Levine are have no part in an honest examination of issues during the homily. Clergy should do what Jesus said and “teach”—and explain “why” what they teach is gospel-based rather than to editorialize. I don’t ever recall Jesus resorting to ridicule or sarcasm to make His point.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014 12:46 AM (EDT):

Mark - “So yes, your evil arguments for ignoring the Church on torture are kissing cousins for the evil arguments that made abortion the law of the land. Repent.”

LOL. My “evil arguments?” What arguments have I made for ignoring the Church on torture?” Torture was only brought up in the discussion because of Momsters support for your over the top behavior, as you are doing now in calling people out when she said, “I don’t care if Mark gets frustrated over ridiculousness. That’s normal. If he calls Republicans out for saying that say they are pro-life, while they talk and act like pro-torture war mongers, hey—they need it.”

Did you read the history of the word “pro-life I laid out in my Part 2 comment to you?” If you did, you would have known that Momsters comment was over the top in light of what the REAL WORD “PRO-LIFE” meant before the bishops couldn’t or wouldn’t use “maximum determination” as JP II insisted everybody do to bring about a Right to Life for the unborn. In other words, the bishops quit on the goal of passing a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment because that would have required at least over half the bishops, clergy and laity to remove their endorsement and support for the Democratic Pro-abortion Party, during the 10 years AFTER Roe v Wade. If they would have done that, then they would be using “maximum determination” and the pro-abortion party would have lost their ELECTOR POWER to keep abortion legal, because without the Catholic vote they wouldn’t get elected.

That being said, Mark, how about answering the other questions I have asked you, starting with this one: If you could end only one of the two following intrinsic evils, torture or abortion, which would YOU chose?
And how about listing the “fruits” of the U.S. bishops’ new definition of pro-life?

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 10:05 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: I got it from this: “What, only “Republicans” support water boarding that has involved only 3 people, none of whom died, were injured, bled, bruised or felt pain? The only impact on them was extreme mental discomfort they wished would end, not unlike that often dished out to tens of hundreds by Marks writings.”

The excuse-making and dissent from the Church’s teaching on torture overlooks not only the fact that *one* act of torture is a mortal sin (and we hanged Japanese for waterboarding people) but that, in fact, there were a lot of other forms of torture authorized by the Bush administration (and cheer-led for by dissenting Catholic like you) and that *at least* 100 prisoners were killed while in our custody—and those are only the ones that *didn’t* survive torture. But, as I have pointed out, many conservative Catholics like you treat the Church’s obvious teaching with contempt on the theory that being opposed to abortion makes approval of other mortal sins AOK, or that the number of prisoners tortured makes state-sponsored torture no big deal. “It’ll just be a few” was exactly the argument offered when legalizing abortion was first proposed.

So yes, your evil arguments for ignoring the Church on torture are kissing cousins for the evil arguments that made abortion the law of the land. Repent.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 8:57 PM (EDT):

Mark - ” And as stillbelieve demonstrates above, they frequently argue that to be opposed to torture is somehow to support abortion, which is rubbish.”

Now, Mark, that is “rubbish.” Go back and read Part 1 in my comment above, again. How in the world could ever get what you said quoted above from what I said?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 4:55 PM (EDT):

Mark, you said, “It is a flat out lie that the bishops, or I, or anybody knowledgeable of Catholic social teaching claims that abortion is only as important as other issues.”

You are absolutely right. The bishops are consistent in pointing out that not all issues have the same moral weight and that abortion is a paramount issue. five

The problem is, in their teaching to Catholics, it is not much different than saying: “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but”...there are all these other important issues we must be concerned with, also. Welcome to the cafeteria of Catholicism.

The bishops complicated it even further in their bringing political parties into the teaching by saying: “Our moral framework does not easily fit the categories of right or left, Democrat or Republican. Our responsibility is to measure every party and platform by how its agenda touches human life and dignity.” (Faithful citizenship) That broad brush denial of partisanship automatically brings partisanship into the equation. It implies one party’s position on an issue is worse than the other’s morally, and leaves it up to the individual to decide which is which. The problem with that is these other issues are not intrinsic evil issues; almost all of them are not even sinful regardless to what a party’s position is. These are prudential judgment issues that shouldn’t be mixed in with intrinsic evil issues.

Their saying, “Our responsibility is to measure every party and platform by how its agenda touches human life and dignity,” is NOT their responsibility. Their responsibility is to teach what is a sin and how to avoid committing sin; and why we should not sin. They should be teaching the importance of acting on what we say we believe as taught in the bible in James, and obey the Great Commandment as directed by Jesus. They should teach us how to become “righteous” for only the righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.

The “fruit” of their teaching in “Faithful Citizenship,” since the adoption of the new meaning of “pro-life” to Catholics, is what? Why was this new teaching to Catholics necessary to keep “the pro-life activities of the bishops” from foundering some 10 years after Roe v. Wade “if they could not be made more appealing to the vast array of priest and others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work?” What was wrong with those Catholics that they couldn’t get behind the bishops in their efforts to pass a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment? Why was it necessary for the U.S. bishops to “keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors?”

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 4:44 PM (EDT):

Bert:

Sure. Prolife conservative Catholics, in percentages larger than the average American, enthusiastically support the use of torture, despite the fact that the Church teaches it is gravely and intrinsically immoral. And as stillbelieve demonstrates above, they frequently argue that to be opposed to torture is somehow to support abortion, which is rubbish. The clear message is that opposition to abortion and torture are somehow incompatible when, in fact, they are both prolife issues, as the Church teaches. Similarly, prolife Catholics ignored, by very large percentages, the warnings of two pope and all the bishops in the world and backed a massively unjust war in Iraq that resulted in (at minimum) 100,000 deaths, horrific genetic mutations from depleted uranium, and the death of a 1600 year old diocese in Mosul with more to come. Their standard excuse for doing this was that war is a “prudential judgment” while abortion is non-negotiable. The transmogrification of “prudential judgment” into “ignore common sense, just war teaching, and the guidance of the Church and do whatever you like, no matter how many innocent die as a result” is one of the ghastliest results of the reduction of all Catholic social teaching to “opposition to the non-negotiables takes away the sins of the world”. It is, frankly, a cartoon to say that the Seamless Garment makes everything equal to abortion. But it is the lived experience of the United States in the past decade that reduction of all Catholic social teaching the non-negotiables has had a huge and deadly cost. The solution is to embrace *all* of Catholic teaching and not just the bits convenient to Cafeteria liberals *or* cafeteria conservatives.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 4:18 PM (EDT):

@Bert: Did you take note in the last election with candidate Rick Santorum? Regardless of other positions people may have agreed or disagreed with him concerning the economy, EPA, foreign policy, etc., the media always had a byline that Rick was against gay marriage and against abortion. The media tagged him as anti-gay and anti-choice. David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press was among the worst. I found it refreshing that Santorum was unapologetic and uncompromising while holding to these biblical positions in the face of cultural political correctness. Who are we, anyway? Don’t we stand for anything?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 4:03 PM (EDT):

@Craig: I offered a perspective re the comments raised from Stilbelieve. A Christian position on any moral issue (whether one is Catholic or Protestant) should be that of alignment with the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Does He not rule our hearts? If we identify with Christ, our actions should reflect what honors Him. And not just some of the time, but all of the time. The problem we have is that high profile leaders whom identify as Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical—these individuals (like it or not) are on display for non believers to watch and observe how they conduct themselves and thus how they present themselves to an unbelieving culture which seems to be increasing. If all they do is blend in and compromise biblical positions to maintain power in elected office, how are they any different from non Christian people? What’s attractive about that? How is that bearing any witness for the cause of Christ, His church and His kingdom? It’s easy to live a lukewarm life because there is no cost in doing so.

Posted by Bert on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 3:42 PM (EDT):

Mark Shea wrote “The truth is that we say that opposition to abortion does not allow Catholics to utterly ignore any other part of Catholic teaching that inconveniences them. And this is, indeed, a very common practice.”
Mark, I don’t see where anyone here is necessarily ignoring Catholic teaching; I see them simply calling some things less important. Can you point out some examples where people are ignoring other teachings as opposed to comparing them? Are you saying that a pro-abortion candidate can’t be ruled out simply because of a pro-abortion stance because they might be right about everything else and that can outweigh their abortion stance? How about pro abortion and pro homosexual marriage candidate?

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 2:53 PM (EDT):

Craig:

It is a flat out lie that the bishops, or I, or anybody knowledgeable of Catholic social teaching claims that abortion is only as important as other issues. The truth is that we say that opposition to abortion does not allow Catholics to utterly ignore any other part of Catholic teaching that inconveniences them. And this is, indeed, a very common practice. Tell that lie again and you are gone from my blog.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 2:04 PM (EDT):

@Craig Roberts: It’s people who “identify” as followers of Christ. We do not judge their ultimate salvation since only God can do that. However, we sure can judge their fruit (as Jesus said). And too often it’s rotten fruit.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 1:48 PM (EDT):

@Casting Crowns
You’re right. Many Catholics are hypocrites. But, as long as bloggers, bureaucrats, and even bishops, can claim that abortion is only as important as other issues (minimum wage, nuclear arms, capitol punishment, water-boarding, immigration) the party-of death will roll on to victory. Just as we must always choose the greatest good (God), discernment of what is evil is useless if we fail to prioritize the greater evil.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 12:59 PM (EDT):

@Stilbelieve: you wrote [“Catholic Democrats would have realized, over time, with the bishops’ and clergies’ teachings, that abortion is a spiritual matter, and if they love God, as they say they do, and pray for God’s “will be done on earth,” they would have acted on their love for God and beliefs, and left their party because that party was the only one standing in the way of passing a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment, protecting the lives they say they believe God creates.”].—

(“as they say they do”) is where the crux of the matter is. Thank you. The idea of church membership or church attendance for such individuals is only a thin veneer and fails to even qualify one in the bracket of the “lukewarm” and is an indictment of both Catholics and Protestants alike. When it comes to being a Christ follower, you need to be “all in” rather than “except when . . .”—

I recall the words of NY Gov. Mario Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro (both professed Catholics who said): “I am personally against abortion, but I cannot impose my will upon other people.” The lunacy of such a statement was politically expedient to be elected to office. No one expects anyone to impose their will upon anyone. Working though, to promote and advance a moral right in the sight of God, to honor His name and to take a stand for righteousness is an obligation of true Christian faith. Who are we anyway,—wishy washy without any anchor in life or are we people of integrity submitted to Christ no matter what the cost? There is always a cost to following Jesus.—

I don’t expect people outside the body of Christ to possess an understanding of things that are spiritually discerned (which Paul speaks of), but how damaging is it when leaders who profess and identify as Christian disciples act contrary to the gospel? Their witness is bogus and only fuels the cynicism of non-believers and validates why media elites think Christian people are often nothing more than hypocrites.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 9:56 PM (EDT):

@Stillbelieve
This Catholic couple go to a therapist for marriage counseling. The therapist says what do you want to talk about?” The wife says, “How about physical abuse, alcoholism, and serial infidelity?” The husband says, “Oh no you don’t! I’m not talking about anything until we get down to who left the cap off the toothpaste!”

Posted by Ronald King on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 8:31 PM (EDT):

#1 Priority would be to end violence

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:47 PM (EDT):

Mark – Part 7

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church would have been far more successful concerning the issues we are talking about today had they heard of, and taken the advice of an adviser who was once called into a very large, successful company by its president, at the turn of the 1900s, and asked how the company can grow even more, and improve. The adviser instructed the president to make a list of everything he wanted his company to accomplish. Upon returning some days later, the adviser then told him to number those items in order of importance to him. The following week, he returned and advised the president to now focus all his work on the number one item on the list, and only work on that item until it’s accomplished; then go on to the number two item on the list, etc. The president told him that was the best advice he has ever gotten; and paid him very well for it. And his business flourished. Had the U.S. bishops followed that advice, we could have had a Constitutional RTL Amendment by now. And a big serendipity, as well, many of the other issues of concern to the bishops today may not have ever come up – such as the attack on the sanctity of marriage supported by the pro-abortion party, and this administration’s attack on the Church herself concerning birth control and health insurance, and Obama’s executive orders such as the upcoming one ending “discrimination” of transgendered and same-sex “marriages” in employment of government sub-contractors, of which the Church is one. And we all have heard of the Church having to get out of the adoption work in some locations because of there placing children with married couples, a man and a woman, only. Why could that have been our future instead of what we have to deal with? Catholic Democrats would have realized, over time, with the bishops’ and clergies’ teachings, that abortion is a spiritual matter, and if they love God, as they say they do, and pray for God’s “will be done on earth,” they would have acted on their love for God and beliefs, and left their party because that party was the only one standing in the way of passing a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment, protecting the lives they say they believe God creates. They wouldn’t have to join the other party; that would be too emotional a change for them; but they could become Independents or Declined to State, and in time they would have started acting on their love for God and His ways in their voting preferences much more comfortably, instead of being guided by their feelings of moral superiority and self-righteousness.

Posted by Ronald King on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:24 PM (EDT):

Abortion is the end result of a culture which dehumanizes human beings and forms them into objects to be manipulated.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:23 PM (EDT):

Mark - Part 6

This new “pro-life” teaching of the bishops also unleashed the tongues of Pro-abortion Catholic Senators like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy and the rest of the Senate pro-abortion Democrats, to add calumny to “interrogations” of any prospective pro-life (anti-abortion) nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, like Judge Robert Bork, who got “Borked,” and black, Roman Catholic Clarence Thomas, whose good name was dragged through the mud in 3 days of a special hearing on live television looking into one female employee’s accusation of a lewd comment Mr. Thomas was accused of making in her presence about “a coke can;” she was an employee who continued working for him afterwards, accepting a new position with him each new job he was promoted to in government. This attack on Justice Thomas was intended to give Democrats an excuse to vote against him (remember he was a Catholic and black); while, at the same time, destroy his name in the black community if he did get elected. This calumny has continued to this day because the Democratic Party now knows they don’t have to worry about any serious criticism from the bishops, or any Catholics leaving the party over this ONE original pro-life issue, thanks to the “Seamless Garment” which has tied Catholic Democrats securely to the party. Where are the “fruits” of the “Seamless Garment?” Where? Another interesting observation of the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominees is that Senate Democrats never seem interested in asking questions about any of those “other pro-life” issues; they’re only interested in the nominee’s pro-life position on abortion. Also, our opponents, the pro-aborts, haven’t felt the need to follow the bishops and expand THEIR preferred name of “pro-choice” to include all other favorable issues that could involve the word “choice.” In addition, I don’t remember hearing of the bishops discussing their plans to expand the definition of the word “pro-life” with any other pro-life organization at the time, do you?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:20 PM (EDT):

Mark – Part 5

The author continued:

“The latter (referring to the right wing conservatives), in the judgment of many, maintained a narrow focus that excluded linkage with any other issues, thus alienating large numbers of people who, although pro-life in their convictions, were convinced that the problem had to be placed in a richer context of moral concerns. Such people felt, for example, that you could not be against abortion without being against activities, some of them government sponsored, that endangered innocent civilians in the cause of destabilizing Central American governments.”

This new, expanded definition of the word “pro-life” saved only one thing – the pro-abortion Democratic Party. It saved it by giving Catholic Democrats the feeling, for the first time since Roe v Wade, moral superiority over the Republicans on THIS issue, because of all the new so called social-justice issues they and the Democratic Party supported that are now under the roof of “pro-life.” It made no difference that those new “pro-life” issues didn’t need a Constitutional Amendment to make any of them a reality; all they needed was to keep Democrats in political power in Congress and state legislatures. Nor did it seem to matter that those Catholics had no influence on the party they choose to remain in since Roe v Wade, which created the original pro-life issue.

Catholics were and still remain the largest single group in the Democratic Party, giving it the ELECTORAL POWER to keep abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land. They did not register out of the Democratic Party like me and tens of thousands of other Catholics did. Being a Catholic Democrat was more important to them then just being a Catholic. Me and hundreds of thousand more Catholics picked our faith over our politics. The “Seamless Garment” changed all of that.

So, your saying, “the fragments, bits, and pieces of it filtered through political ideologies” seems much more applicable to how the “seamless garment,” i.e., “the consistent ethic of life,” came into being.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:18 PM (EDT):

Mark – Part 4

In the biography “Cardinal Bernardin,” written by a 30 year-long friend of his, says this about the “need” for this new expanded meaning of “pro-life:”

“…, the pro-life activities of the bishops would founder if they could not be made more appealing to the vast array of priests and others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work. A more cohesive and consistent position that recognized a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, would energized the priest, clergy, and laypeople in direct contact with the Catholic population in a positive way. Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others BUT IT WOULD KEEP THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT FROM FALLING COMPLETELY UNDER CONTROL OF THE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE BECOMING IT DOMINANT SPONSORS. (my emphasis. Mark, do you really think God cared if the pro-life movement “fell completely under control of the right wing conservatives?”) (This book was published in 1989; the Cardinal died in 1996. He never refuted a word of what his friend, Eugene Kennedy, wrote in his biography.) (Why would “pro-life (anti-abortion) activities founder” i.e., “collapse,” among “the vast array of priest and others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work?.” Abortion wasn’t a serious enough Catholic moral issue for the clergy and front ranks of pastoral work to rally behind and change? Or, was it perhaps too many of them would have to make a decision they didn’t want to make – like remove their names and support from the political party they loved being in, party of their self-identity?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:15 PM (EDT):

Mark – Part 3

So that Cardinal took these partisan concerns to heart and weaved a “seamless garment” of all kinds of national/international issues that he thought can be called “pro-life,” issues that were well known to be supported by the party that had became the pro-abortion party. The problem, however, was those issues were not intrinsic evil issues like abortion; they were prudential judgment issues which carried no sin along with them. The Cardinal’s proposal was sent to Rome for consent and was reviewed by Cardinal Ratzinger and who returned it six months later with a few changes. It was presented to the national bishops’ conference and adopted in 1984. Catholic Democrats and the media happily endorsed the new concept of “pro-life” because it enabled Catholic Democrats to now say they are “pro-life,” too, adding, “but their pro-life doesn’t end at birth.” This calumny came from the Cardinal, himself. He was the Shepherd of the Archdiocese of Chicago; Chicago, one of the biggest one party cites in the country. Of the 50 Member City Council, all 50 Members were from one party – the pro-abortion Democratic Party. He was also the Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee. The media herald it.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:05 PM (EDT):

Mark – Part 2

Now, some important historical background information to put the word “pro-life” in perspective. “Wikipedia says this about the word ‘pro-life.’ The United States pro-life movement (also known as the United States anti-abortion movement or the United States right-to-life movement) is a social and political movement in the United States opposing on moral or sectarian grounds elective abortion and usually supporting its legal prohibition or restriction.” Being a pro-lifer, an original pro-lifer when the word was first used, meant being against abortion AND supporting a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment ending legal abortion, and wiping out the Roe v Wade decision. The word itself was coined to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves – “pro-choice,” and to highlight our belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. The media refused to call us by that name, using instead – “anti-abortion,” while they continued to call the pro-aborts by the name they called themselves. The U.S. bishops were the first to organize and to call for a U.S. Constitutional Right to Life Amendment Amendment. Ten years went by with “pro-life” meaning what Wikipedia said it did. Then, out of the blue, along came a U.S. Catholic Cardinal with ideas flowing out of Catholic partisan mouths for “fairness” just as things were starting to pay off for all the hard work pro-lifers did up until then, while having to fight through all kinds of media and public bias. Accomplishments were 1) one major political party adopted a Pro-Life plank to their platform. Two, Pro-life Members of Congress were getting elected, defeating incumbent pro-abortion Members. Three, a pro-life President who was a very popular person defeated an incumbent pro-abortion President, getting elected with strong cross-over votes.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 7:02 PM (EDT):

Part 1.

Mark: “Torture” may be a mortal sin but its relevance to our moral culture, society and country is non existent. The word “torture” is not even indexed in my two Life in Christ Catechisms (years 1958; 1995), nor in my Compendium – Catechism of the Catholic Church (2009). I did find it in my CCC, #2297, which has one sentence that categorized the unjust motives for performing this act, non of which fit our government’s actions with water boarding. Abortion, however, is the first word in the index in all 4 of those books.

Be that as it may, it is the proportionality of the “Seamless Garment” i.e., “consistent ethic of life,” that is a concern, as well as the motivation for its creation and adoption by the U.S. Bishops. Talking about “calling Republicans out for saying that they are pro-life, while they talk and act like pro-torture war mongers,” is a bit of an exaggeration to say the least. Three Islamist terrorist water-boarded verses 57,000,000 murdered American babies?, and that does not include the number of babies murdered by birth-control abortifacients. Mark, If you had the power to end one or the other, which would you end, water-boarding or abortion? Having a teaching that equates, to whatever degree, torture to abortion is a stretch at best.

Posted by Ronald King on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 3:13 PM (EDT):

I think the foundation for biblical interpretation begins with the Cross, otherwise we are left to what we want to believe.

Posted by Bill Russell on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 1:10 PM (EDT):

Risking pedantry, I’d point out that strong exegesis these days contends that in the injunction to “turn the other cheek” our Lord meant that we should outwit the offender, for by so turning, it would not be possible for the striker to attack with the back of his hand a second time. You may Google a lot on this. But the point is that the counsel to turn the other cheek is a form of being “wiser than serpents” and not just innocent as doves.

Secondly, the image of butter instead of guns is not a happy one for anyone who knows modern history. It was a phrase of Stanley Baldwin, nemesis of Churchill, and when he invoked it as an excuse for not having built up armaments against the growing Nazi threat, there was an embarrassed silence in the House of Commons - and the embarrassment was for him. Eventually, the price of butter was World War II.

Posted by Carl Sommer on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 11:37 AM (EDT):

Precious Feet Pins? Seriously, Mark, I think you need to go on a long retreat. No shame in that. We all need one, from time to time.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 10:26 AM (EDT):

“The Church would be immeasurably better off if Catholics listened to the teaching of the Magisterium and not to the fragments, bits, and pieces of it filtered through political ideologies.”

Why did my irony meter just explode?

Posted by Craig Roberts on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 10:23 AM (EDT):

“...wearing Precious Feet pins does not take away the sins of the world.”

Mark please answer these questions:

1) Do you actually think that there are a significant number of Catholics that do believe that ‘wearing Precious Feet pins take away the sins of the world’?

2) Are you completely unaware of what a hurtful divisive statement it is?

I’m starting to think your problems have more to do with discernment than anger management.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 10:10 AM (EDT):

I have to agree with Bert. Mark is doing the old ‘moral equivelancy’ argument to justify slamming pro-lifers that don’t deserve to be insulted.

Posted by Bert on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 8:07 AM (EDT):

@Mark Shea or whoever wrote “It turns out torture is a mortal sin and wearing Precious Feet pins does not take away the sins of the world.”

These are pretty offensive words. If a “pro-life” Catholic had to weight these two topics, being “anti-abortion” would have to win just looking at the sheer numbers, the end result, the possibility of obtaining life-saving info, and innocense. I am not trying to justify torture here. I put it this way because I feel too many Catholics belittle the anti-abortion stance which is a primary concern - talking about fullness of teaching.

Posted by Mark Shea on Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 4:04 AM (EDT):

StillBelieve: The Pope disagree with you. It turns out torture is a mortal sin and wearing Precious Feet pins does not take away the sins of the world. This was also the point of the Seamless Garment teaching—and one woefully ignored by many Catholics who have opted to ignore the fullness of the Church’s teaching on the theory that being anti-abortion (not prolife) exempted them from paying attention to it. The Church would be immeasurably better off if Catholics listened to the teaching of the Magisterium and not to the fragments, bits, and pieces of it filtered through political ideologies.

Posted by Hank on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 6:41 PM (EDT):

Mr. Shea, I thought I’d noticed a change in tone in your blog. I couldn’t quite put a word on it. Slightly calmer, or more matured, or something like that. Anyway, it’s good, and I admire your efforts. For myself, whoever that other person is, I try to remember that Christ died for him or her. This helps me be more polite than I might be otherwise. Politeness isn’t much, I know, and it’s embarrassing that it can be such a struggle, that the harsh and aggressive words are so often the first that come to my mind. Personally, this is more of a struggle in my home life than it is at large. There are people for whom I could have true charity and compassion, if only I didn’t have to have it for quite so many hours, quite so many days of the week. I’m caring for a difficult in-law, and the mix of compassion and revulsion is hard to manage. The compassion feels better for everyone, but the dark side always rolls back up, and once again I am struggling to be polite, and performing my duties in a pedestrian way. I wonder if I am odd in having an easier time being compassionate and charitable for people who are a few steps removed. I mean, ultimately it doesn’t matter to me what all these people on line say or think, because I believe God is tending to us all. It’s another story, when it’s actually my job to tend to someone, the charity that begins at home. Here, the contradiction is in my face; on the one hand, my own untenable pridefulness, in which I cherish and rehearse harsh judgements, and on the other hand, Christ and Mary. I suppose we all get what we need. The hard part is putting it to use.

All the best.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 6:35 PM (EDT):

@Carl Sommer
Thank you. That was really helpful. Unfortunately I failed to start a giant mud fight with a bunch of indignant Catholic fan-boys. Oh well, guess I’m not such a great troll after all. You win peace-maker!

Posted by Carl Sommer on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 6:23 PM (EDT):

Craig, Elves, orcs, Goblins and the other non-human creatures of Middle Earth do not represent humans, but spiritual beings. For instance, Elves are angels, Orcs are the fallen angels (demons), etc. So it’s not surpprising that all Orcs would be evil, and not a reflection of racism at all. Humans have the power to choose good or evil, and in Tolkein’s world all actions have consequences. There are Christ-figures in Middle Earth. Frodo represents the human, suffering Jesus who bears the sins of humanity in the form of the ring. There are ananlogies for the Eucharist and other Catholic teachings. I would recommend Joseph Pearce’s fine book Tolkein: Man and Myth, A Literary Life as a good book if you care to take it that far.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 5:20 PM (EDT):

Speaking of trolls…
Could somebody please explain to me why Catholics are always holding up the works of J.R.R. Tolkien as ‘great Christian moral literature’?

Not only is there no God and no Christ in middle-earth, but the whole foundation of good vs. evil is based on nothing but race. Sure the humans have the power to choose between good and evil but if you’re born a goblin or an ork you are automatically consigned to the power of darkness. What could be more racist? And less Christian?

Is it just because JRRT was Catholic before it was cool or is it because the average Catholic can’t discern the Gospel from fairy tales?

Posted by Craig Roberts on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 3:17 PM (EDT):

Doh! Looks like I still have some work to do…

My problem is (and Mark could attest to this) that I’m a horrible evangelist but an awesome troll. So it’s hard not to lead with my strengths.

Posted by Carl Sommer on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 3:11 PM (EDT):

Craig, haha! Things Jesus did not say: “Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to whack your brother over the head with it.”

Posted by Craig Roberts on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 2:52 PM (EDT):

Haha! I’ve also found that if you first remove the beam from your own eye you have something handy to whack that splinter eyed idjot with!

Posted by David Naas on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 2:45 PM (EDT):

OK, who are you REALLY, and why are you trying to impersonate Mark Shea?
We all KNOW mark Shea is a belligerent jerk who…
Oh! This IS you! Well, mea culpa on me.
Yeah, we all do IT, don’t we?
Of late, when challenged by some hydrophobe in combox conversation, I have been trying to give the soft answer that “turneth away wrath”. Thanking the person for their response, noting the good points in what they say (and they will have something good, well sometimes).
Amazingly, this has frequently turned into a very excellent discussion, and when we close it out, have been able to do so amicably.
Not always. Sometimes my fault. But it sure beats the alternative of going for the Daily Outrage.

Posted by Allison on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 11:40 AM (EDT):

This is one to save and read again slowly when I’m not frantically trying to readasmuchasIcan before the kids wake up. Thank you!

Posted by Craig Roberts on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 10:09 AM (EDT):

“Mark Shea is an anti-Fatima divisive liar…”

Mark Shea is a lot of things but ‘liar’ is not one of them. Just because somebody is passionate, stubborn, confused, and even wrong, it does not mean that they are not sincere. I don’t think even Elaine or Steve D. would call Mark a liar.

“...who says the Consecration of Russia is done.” That’s a controversial topic among alot of people so he is free to disagree.

“Mark Shea is making a subtle attempt here to say…” Again, Mark Shea is rarely ‘subtle’. What makes his articles flash points for arguments is that he generally eschews ‘subtle attempts’ that would tend to not offend anybody and goes for the mega-phone of righteous indignation that forces people to choose sides.

“If you do not agree with Mark Shea you are divisive and quarrelsome.” Hmmm…that’s a very good point. I’ve often thought that he dismissed people without giving their opinions any respect. But I guess changing that is kinda what the whole article is about.

New Babylon, I’m not speaking for Mark, I’m just pointing out that some of your accusations are unfounded and unfair.

Posted by Bibbit on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 8:20 AM (EDT):

You KNOW what’s coming, right? Jesus called people heretics and such, so they can call other people names too. I don’t like it, but it’s coming. Unless this somehow steels their thunder.

Posted by ANNE on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 7:04 AM (EDT):

Name calling is not Catholic. Please stop and be civil.
Hatred is not Catholic, and violates “Love thy neighbor”.
There will be unity within the Church when the Faithful ACCURATELY know their Faith in entirety.
When you know the Doctrine of the Faith in accurately and entirety, you will easily be able to correct errors - even if by a Clergy. You will not be a cause of confusion.
The Magisterium has given us a great gift - which contains the Doctrine of the Faith which we all are required to adhere to: “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
Know that heretics and schismatics can be of all types.
.
I repeat:
No need for disunity within the Church - - - -
.
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more,
by reading and meditating on the Scriptures,
studying the Catechism,
steadily approaching the Sacraments.” - Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
.
CCC: ” 2089… HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
... SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
.
For quotes from Saint Pope John Paul II, Pope Bendict XVI, and Pope Francis on the CCC, please go to: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
http://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com/

Posted by New Babylon on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 AM (EDT):

I agree with Steve D and Elaine who say…

STEVE D.
“Then swallow your own medicine Shea, get off the internet, stop blogging, facebooking or whatever and get busy with what you’re supposed to be doing, You, Mark Shea, are one of the primary causes of creating anger and division among Catholics online, but your massive ego prohibits you from admitting this.”

ELAINE:
Mark Shea…seriously? Tut-tutting about this, when YOU have the MOST Quarrelsome tone in the entire Catholic blogosphere, here, on your Patheos blog and on Facebook? ALL you do is put people into boxes and call them names! Admit it - admit your contribution to this terrible negative environment! Your routine mea culpas - in this column and those you offer periodically - are meaningless.

Mark Shea is an anti-Fatima divisive liar who says the Consecration of Russia is done. It is not. Mark Shea is making a subtle attempt here to say “If you do not agree with Mark Shea you are divisive and quarrelsome.”

Posted by DM on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2014 5:45 AM (EDT):

To the reader, I have two suggestions.

1. Forgive yourself. “What’s he talking about? I’m talking about OTHER people being annoying, what’s that got to do with me?” But to my mind the most annoying thing about other people being annoying is that it shames us into realizing how annoying the human individual can be, including ourselves - we may not realize it but I honestly think that’s what’s going on when we struggle to forgive another. They are ‘showing us up’. As we forgive ourselves, it gets easier if other people aren’t meeting the mark.

2. Learn as much as possible about the issues - people aren’t going to stop arguing, if they weren’t arguing about this it would be something else. So the choice is between seeing people arguing, and not being able to follow the argument, or, being well informed enough that you can at least see where people are coming from - you may still feel annoyed but at least you won’t be confused or disoriented. It seems to me a good place to start is the encyclicals of the pre-conciliar Popes. Pius XII’s Mediator Dei, on the mass and Pope Leo’s Libertas, on true liberty, are a good place to start. It’s good to be believe in continuity, but it’s important to try to be as precise as possible about where the continuity is, rather than appealing solely to a Catholic sense of piety for authority.

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 11:14 PM (EDT):

No need for disunity within the Church - - - -
.
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more,
by reading and meditating on the Scriptures,
studying the Catechism,
steadily approaching the Sacraments.” - Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
.
CCC: ” 2089… HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
... SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
_________________________

Posted by Connie on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 10:08 PM (EDT):

This discussion I have actually enjoyed and even learned a thing or two!

Posted by Ruari McCallion on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 6:43 PM (EDT):

Mark, this is one of the best columns you have ever done.

I say “one of the best” because I haven’t read all of them. But I can say that it is probably the best one I have read.

Well done, my man!

(But hey - you knew I am a sucker for a good Corinthians quote, didn’t you?)
:)

Posted by Carl Sommer on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 6:21 PM (EDT):

Please, please, please, let’s not use Saint Nicholas to justify bad behavior! Nicholas was removed from his episcopal office by the Fathers of the Council of Nicea for punching Arius, even though the Fathers agreed with him about Arius’s theology. He was only restored to the See of Myra after he had undergone a significant period of repentance. So, no, Nicholas was not right to punch Arius, and his fellow bishops, many of whom became saints in their own right, imposed significant ecclesiastical penalties on him for doing it.

Posted by taad on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 6:02 PM (EDT):

One more little thing, did you all hear that Saint Nicholas was so mad about a certain heretic who questioned the Divinity of Jesus Christ, he searched the priest out at the council and punched him out. He laid him out! May we have more people who are willing to defend Our Lord! We are in a battle. We must not be wimps, Jesus wasn’t, he called people out. Some things are worth fighting for. Fulton Sheen was no wimp. Padre Pio was no wimp. The church of nice is a false church.

Posted by anthony on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 5:30 PM (EDT):

Mark, is this a chapter in a book you are writing on forgiveness? If not, get to it. You have a gift to give the Church.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 4:53 PM (EDT):

Momster, “If he calls Republicans out for saying that say they are pro-life…”

Do you, or Mark, know where the word “pro-life” came from and why?

Posted by taad on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 4:21 PM (EDT):

Good article Mark. Just some thoughts. I love history, and the lives of the saints, especially unsanitized ones. If we read about their lives we will soon find that some of them could be really nasty, sending bitter letters to other saints of their own time arguing about certain doctrines or theology. It’s true. This is nothing new. Even loving families have blow ups now again. It is the crucible on which we can learn and come to the Truth and understanding. We are flesh and blood and this is not Heaven yet. Anyone who promotes that one day on earth it will all become one big happy love fest is deluded. It ain’t gonna happen! This utopia that many promote (especially politicians!)is not going to happen until after Jesus Christ Our Lord returns. Till then it is going to be ugly at times. Not that we shouldn’t work at it, but we can only get so far this side of Heaven. The Devil likes to make us think we are bad unless we made utopia here. He plays all sides to get us to despair or make us think we are hypocrites.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 2:40 PM (EDT):

Momster, “I don’t care if Mark gets frustrated over ridiculousness. That’s normal. If he calls Republicans out for saying that say they are pro-life, while they talk and act like pro-torture war mongers, hey—they need it.”

What, only “Republicans” support water boarding that has involved only 3 people, none of whom died, were injured, bled, bruised or felt pain? The only impact on them was extreme mental discomfort they wished would end, not unlike that often dished out to tens of hundreds by Marks writings.

Posted by Summer Frost on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 2:07 PM (EDT):

Mr. Shea, thank you for the fine example of taking your medicine and eating your own words. They never are as sweet the second time, as we thought they were the first time! How many mea culpas does it take? An eternity of them, for most of us.

There are people out there who seem to despise Mark, or the Tea Party, or Rad Trads, or _____ . And the people who get the most worked up about ____ , seem to be incapable of NOT engaging about it. It’s like an addiction.

Personally, I am profoundly and deeply grateful for Mark and his writing. As a “Recovering Campbellite”, he has been incredibly helpful publically and with some privately answered questions, as I journey to the Tiber. As a red-headed Mick myself, I recognize the temper(ament) that runs toward “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

For those that just can’t help being angry, I offer these perspectives. There are some wonderful examples of engaging in a Classical fashion on the net. If you are not familiar with Rhetoric, Dialog, and Logic, learn them. You’ll learn to spot your attacker’s fallacies, and respond a *bit* more cerebrally. (This works better if your hair is NOT red, and you are not a Mick. Micks have to rely substantially on prayer, penance, Eucharist. Repeat.)

I was once offered 2 different pieces of advice that I cherish, even if I have to keep reminding myself of them. 1.) When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is put down the shovel and stop digging. 2.) If you keep running into the same problems and sorts of people over and over, stop and look at the common denominator. It’s probably that guy you see shaving every morning, or the chick putting on her make up when you do.

Keep up the good work, Mark! And pray for me. I pray for you. And the irritants whose name is Legion.

Posted by Momster on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 2:02 PM (EDT):

I read Mark’s blog all the time, and I simply wouldn’t read the writings of a jerk. He has persuaded me to think of conservatism from a different angle. He has challenged my comfort zone. I used to get angry and upset when someone would send me a Michael Voris scandalfest until I realized how destructive these kinds of so called defenders of the faith really are. Their bread and butter is nothing but zealotry and scandal. Juxtapose this with what Fr. Barron inspires in the soul! I don’t care if Mark gets frustrated over ridiculousness. That’s normal. If he calls Republicans out for saying that say they are pro-life,while they talk and act like pro- torture war mongers, hey—they need it. I admire his passion to defend the rights of undesirables that nobody else cares to defend. That’s called virtue in action. If they they direct their bile at our Holy Father, and think they have the spiritual standing to be his inquisitors, they deserve to be exposed for what they really are. Keep saying it Mark, it’s called tough love. Spoiled and petulant children need a mirror held up to their narcissism, even if the parent who does it risks getting spat on. What’s funny/sad about this situation is that a bunch of his *readers* are mad at him for having a different point of view (exposing their idols). It rankles them to be called out,but they don’t. have. to. read. Mark.Shea. It’s obvious that their explosive and petty anger is a sign that their consciences are conflicted, but instead of asking themselves if they might have been WRONG and stubbornly PROUD,about defending their supposed moral high ground they try to stone the messenger who exposes them. Does that sound familiar? The irony is that these proud people actually think they are being God’s defender and mouthpiece. There can’t be any other motivation for what they do. They are BLIND to the fact that they tear at the body of Christ because they admire themselves so utterly as God’s only little flock. Over the years they have put their heads together with other *outraged* defenders of their so-called orthodoxy where they all indulge in pointing fingers together and wringing their hands rather than face true *introspection*. God forbid should they actually get in the trenches and ditches to do works of mercy.That might get their hands/keyboard dirty. God forbid should they see how sublime that simple mass is at the Church down the street. No, they need to insult it, and call it names. They need to disparage the kind of simple and normal people who encounter Jesus there.
.
“But Lord! Lord! We were your defenders of orthodoxy!...
.
...
We all know how that story ends.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 1:04 PM (EDT):

I have found many Catholic blogs to be poison. But I keep coming back. It’s like meth and Mark is cooking up a batch better than Walter White.

Posted by Ronald King on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 12:03 PM (EDT):

Mark already has an editor, the Holy Spirit, who appears to be a strong influence.

Posted by reader1 on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 11:38 AM (EDT):

Mark, you clearly know your weaknesses. And it is very good that you can see them. And even better that you can admit them publicly. And still better that you understand that it is part of the internal spiritual battle that all fallen people (that is all people) have to fight. But it is not unreasonable to say:

“Mark, you spend a great deal of your time speaking to people via the internet seeking to influence in some way the thoughts of people toward a Catholic viewpoint focused on the Gospel. You have bravely told us you have a big problem being temperate in these communications and that the big problem can counteract the evangelization you are admirably attempting. Please get an editor. Please put some restrictions on yourself. It is difficult to read you and to recommend that others read you when you periodically write in a tone that (to many people of faith and good will) seems pompous, know-it-all-ish, mean, nasty, snarky, improperly judgmental and/or defensive. All of the good things you write (and there are many) become obliterated by the frequent blow-ups. You have CHOSEN to write to a large audience - which means you have a duty to self-impose some temperance either by improved self-restraint or by voluntarily subjecting all of your writing/posting/commenting to and editor (who could be paid or I am sure you could find volunteers who love you and your work who would assist you in this regard).”

I comment out of total empathy for your situation. I don’t judge you - I actually presume the best intentions on your part and want you to conquer your problems (don’t we all want that for our brethren?).

Posted by Craig Roberts on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 11:34 AM (EDT):

@Steve D., Reader1
None of us can judge whether anybody has ‘true contrition’ or not. That’s why Catholics have confession. All I know is that a few weeks ago all of my posts would have been deleted as soon as they hit the screen. Perhaps this was a good policy, or maybe it was just “If you can’t beat ‘em, delete ‘em.” Either way it’s obvious things have changed at least a little bit. If his next article is titled “Why all republican Catholics are going to hell.” we can all pile on then. In the mean time let’s just let him have the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Steve D. on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 11:15 AM (EDT):

Reader1,
I think you’re getting to the heart of the matter. All the “mea culpas” and blessings in the world don’t really mean anything if the person isn’t seeking true contrition, and making sincere attempts to change. I see none of that here, just the same old patterns.

Posted by Bert on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 11:14 AM (EDT):

Maybe this is just a bad method of interaction. If we were talking to people in person we’d be more restrained. We’d also be more restrained if we knew we may meet these people in person. I know I am this way. On the other hand, I often feel like I have been too restrained with people I know. In a way, I feel this is good practice for dealing with the “dummies” ;) in my life.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 10:59 AM (EDT):

Reader1: My point is that your idea is simply unrealistic. The notion that I should run around demanding “edit me” of total strangers in the blogosphere is simply out of touch with reality. Who stuck them with the responsibility of watching every word that comes out of my mouth? The notion that every writer needs to have a personal Jiminy Cricket to tell him what he can and can’t say is simply not possible.

Thanks for the blessing Mark. I like the new tone. The hard fact is that we all need to be called out if we calumniate our fellow Catholics.

Perhaps we should not think of this as a Catholic problem. Catholics are not natural back-biters. People are, and Catholics tend to be people.

But shouldn’t we be better than others? The moment we see ourselves as ‘better than others’ we are tempted to declare ourselves cured and leave the metaphorical hospital. The metaphor breaks down when we realize that to be ‘cured’ we must die to ourselves.

Bless you back and keep up the good work. Not everything you do is dreck.

Posted by reader1 on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 10:10 AM (EDT):

If I know I have a serious problem, and I won’t voluntarily take simple steps to address the problem, I can excuse that by pointing to the first amendment. I see. Rings hollow. The “police state” reply is a strawman or false dichotomy. I suggested you voluntarily put some external restraints on yourself so your frequent explosions might be less likely or even elininated. It seems like your answer might really be “Because I don’t want to”.

The alcoholic who hangs out at the bar and in his weakness keeps ordering drinks and getting drunk does not seem to be serious about the problem or a man from whom other alcoholics would take advice. It’s not that he is a bad man, but that he sets a poor example and it would be imprudent to seek his advice.

Posted by Ronald King on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 9:54 AM (EDT):

Mark, I admire your attempts to present a model of humility and I am in awe of the attacks you receive in response. When I read these attacks I just have this sense of facing a fortified stone wall with built in loud speakers. A sinking feeling envelopes me and I have learned from experience that I am powerless in the face of this structure. So I leave this forum once again left with a feeling of awe.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 9:31 AM (EDT):

Steve D, Craig Roberts, Elaine: The LORD bless you and keep you: The LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.(Nu 6:24–26)

reader1: Because that is not possible. The blogosphere is not a police state.

Posted by Carl Sommer on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 9:25 AM (EDT):

Ironic that the comments to an article despairing over quarrelsome Catholics has been taken over by quarrelsome Catholics determined to carry out their quarrels to the bitter end. It’s a good thing I never participate in quarrels!

Posted by reader1 on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 9:03 AM (EDT):

Mark, if you understand your own weakness, why don’t you simply agree to have every word you write vetted by an editor with instructions to let nothing slip by that demonstrates that weakness? For gosh sakes it’s your daily work - it’s not some infrequent temptation.

Posted by Robert on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 8:46 AM (EDT):

The point is not that we ought not correct, that we must keep silent in the face of error and evil, but that we correct and reprove in a spirit of charity and mercy.

Posted by Kevin on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 6:38 AM (EDT):

In regards to the Matthew quote I have come across some explanations other than passivity.

From Catholic Answers forum:
Notice that Jesus specifically said, “If someone strikes you on your right cheek.” That is because in order to strike someone in the face on their right cheek, that would mean that you used the back of your hand, the more painful way. This was the way that someone superior would hit his inferior, such as a master would hit a slave, or a husband his wife. The other way to slap someone was with your palm; this is how one would strike an equal. So when Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek,” the left cheek, what he is saying is, invite them to hit you with the palm, in other words, telling them, “If you’re going to hit me again, hit me like an equal.”

I also have heard that if one was to labor past 1 mile in servitude then the “superior” would be in some form of default.

Any input from others would be welcome.

Posted by cpola on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 5:49 AM (EDT):

.
Posted by George on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:55 AM (EDT):

“The comments here are a great example of ‘temptation to despair.’ Did anybody actually read this piece with an open heart? Two comments down, this devolved into exactly what the author is complaining about.

Last January, I took a 5 month break from Catholic blogs and internet news. I was much better off, and my general mood and demeanor and faith life has been affected negatively since I started reading Catholic internet pieces again.
I really want to be able to read the Catholic internet, and use it to increase my faith. But I am starting to feel like it just is not possible.”
.
The fight on the Catholic Blogosphere is between catholics who say: “we stand with the Pope provided he is standing with Jesus of Nazareth”; and those catholics who say: “we stand with the Pope whether or not he is standing with Jesus of Nazareth. Even if the Pope is standing with the Ancient Enemy of Man, we still stand with the Pope.”
.
This fight is going to continue and get worse as the time of the Second Advent of Jesus draws closer.
Fasten your seat-belts; there is no place to hide.

Posted by Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 2:46 AM (EDT):

To Robert Waligora

Hold the line Robert—-perseverance pays. I’m going to simplify this—- Christ told us a story about someone who kept knocking on a door until the one inside got tired of hearing the knocking and opened it. Someimes God wants us to prove we’re willing to go the extra miles. I promise you He and His Beloved Son will take back that which is theirs. The tide is turning—I cite the backlash against homosexuality in Uganda and Nigeria as one example. Abortion has begun its 41st year. North Dakota banned abortion a year ago saying the state needed citizens—-which it does—-in 2005 its population started declining. It has set aside money to take the argument to the Supreme Court. South Dakota has been advertising for people to move there and become residents of the state for spproximately 10 years. Check out demographics and projected populations for states in 2050. A good number will be concerned—-a very good argument in favor of keeping immigrants (illegal or not) and finding some way to smooth their way and that of their children to legal citizenship. The number 40 in the Bible seems to hold special meaning where God is concerned—-40 years in the desert—-40 days and 40 nights—etc…

I agree the remark Pope Francis made was extemely careless for someone in his position—-it made liars out of a lot of people in the United States who were already trying to hold back too many attacks. I’m frankly distressed that he would put such a great distance between the way he operates—-such a great contrast—-between himself and the very holy and excellent Popes who preceded him who need to be remembered as well as their much needed writing and teaching. He wants to be one of the “common people” but the world is full of common men. Being a Pope takes an extraordinary man, especially today. I think maybe he’s just moving a bit fast—-he’s had a million problems dropped in his lap—- and things will begin to level off a bit—-after all, how many men get to be called Pope?

Posted by Dolorosa on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 1:22 AM (EDT):

The Bible warns us of apostasy, a remnant of the faithful and even will the son of god find faith when he returns. The battle within the Catholic Church is between Tradition vs Modernism, False Ecumenism, etc. One can’t go wrong following the traditions always taught before the pastoral VII council. St Pius X warned against Modernism and the one world church of antichrist.

Posted by Henry on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 1:14 AM (EDT):

“Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are as traditional as it gets. And they help the Church. The sin of anger does not help the Church.”

When we considered the sin of sloth, we saw that there are two kinds of sadness: the sadness from God, and the sadness of the world. “The sadness which is according to God worketh penance unto salvation, but the sadness of the world worketh death.” We should know that there are also two kinds of anger: anger according to God, and the anger of man. The anger which is according to God is nothing other than holy zeal for the rights of God and of His Church. This righteous anger is often found on the lips of the Psalmist: “zeal for thy house hath consumed me;” and Our Lord Himself showed us the greatest example of it when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple and violently drove out all those who would make His Father’s House a house of traffic. Who cannot be inspired by the example of the holy martyrs who so patiently endured violence against their own person, but who would nevertheless fly into a rage if anyone of their persecutors dared to blaspheme the holy name of God? There is certainly nothing wrong with this sort of anger. On the contrary, there is something very wrong with someone who never feels it. The Sacred Heart teaches us to be meek, not weak.

The anger of man, however, cannot claim any divine inspiration. As St. James warns us: Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God. Anger is a movement of man’s soul, a passion, and like all the passions, anger is neither good nor bad. Often our anger can be used for good. Everyone knows the old trick of getting his anger up so that he can get out of bed in the morning or run that last lap. It is when we allow our actions to be controlled by anger rather than right reason that sin enters in.

Anger may be defined simply as “the desire to get revenge.” And nearly always, it is not the rights of God or of our helpless neighbor that we are seeking to avenge, but our own ruffled pride. The smallest child displays this behavior. If his brother hits him over the head with a toy, he might be surprised the first time and just cry from the pain, but the second time his first thought will be to settle the score, with a little more thrown in for good measure.

The fact that sins of anger are often only venial should not put us at ease. Never forget that, after original sin, the first mortal sin recorded in the Scriptures was a sin of anger. Cain fell from grace long before he finally rose up against his brother. As Our Lord said from the Mount: you have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment. But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of judgment.

St. Francis de Sales tells us: “It is a matter of great importance to make our conversation agreeable. To do so it is necessary to appear humble, patient, respectful, cordial, yielding in all lawful things to all. Above all, we must avoid contradicting the opinion of anyone, unless there is an evident necessity for it. In that case, it should be done with all possible mildness, and with the greatest tact, without in the least outraging the feelings of the other party. In this way we shall avoid contests which produce only bitterness and which ordinarily spring rather from attachment to our own opinion than from love of truth. Believe me, there are no dispositions more inimical to human society than those which are given to contradiction, just as there is no person more commonly loved than he who contradicts no one.”

Some people are never in control of their temper, but most are able to avoid being an ogre in public; their own vanity keeps their anger in check. Tragically, it most often with those to whom we are closest – our friends and closest family members—that our wrath knows no bounds. With them we are, it seems, ready to fight to the death over the smallest matters. In some households, snapping, cutting down, and a hateful tone of voice are a way of life – or rather, a way of death. The initial reasons for a quarrel are soon forgotten; all that matters is winning the battle at hand. One side tries raising the voice; the other fishes for whatever he can come up with at the moment; slanderous remarks about others, exaggerations, even outright lies. He is offended by every word or glance which could be perceived as an affront to his dignity. In his thoughts he nurses his anger, revisits old grievances, holds grudges. He spends the day imagining new fights and new arguments where his rights are finally vindicated. Then even vanity can no longer restrain the wrathful man. Like the man of Jericho in today’s Gospel, he is blind. He defies God Himself, for he says over and over again in his heart, vengeance is mine; I will repay.

Let us hear again the counsel of our holy patron: we must be “patient, respectful, cordial, yielding in all lawful things to all. Above all, we must avoid contradicting the opinion of anyone, unless there is an evident necessity for it. In that case, it should be done with all possible mildness, and with the greatest tact, without in the least outraging the feelings of the other party.” What a program for Lent! For most of us, following this counsel is nothing less than the Way of the Cross, a complete emptying of self. Examine your conscience on any given day, and recall all the times that you have crossed others in thought, word or deed. What were your reasons? Was it to defend God’s holy Name? To defend the truth and keep others, especially children, from learning error or falling into sin? Were you moved by charity to defend your neighbor from cruelty? Did you hope to defend your own good name from grievous slander? In all these instances, you may humbly thank God for giving you the courage to say what was right. In all other cases, you may be sure that your anger got the better of you.

Do not get angry at yourself about it. Cry out to God with all your heart: Lord, grant that I may see! Heal me from my blindness, and grant me the grace to see the misery which my anger causes me and others in this life and will surely cause me in the next unless I learn from You, who are meek and humble of heart. Let not one more sun go down upon my anger, but let me bury it today in the abyss of Your mercy. Amen.

http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2011/03/wrath.html

Posted by Elaine on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2014 12:41 AM (EDT):

Mark Shea…seriously? Tut-tutting about this, when YOU have the MOST Quarrelsome tone in the entire Catholic blogosphere, here, on your Patheos blog and on Facebook? ALL you do is put people into boxes and call them names! Admit it - admit your contribution to this terrible negative environment! Your routine mea culpas - in this column and those you offer periodically - are meaningless. Steve D is right.

Posted by Elizabeth S. on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:22 PM (EDT):

Thank you, Mark, for this article! I struggle with anger in the exact same way you do. It’s almost like you are reading my mind! I have bookmarked this column so I can read it again and again as I fight to remove this cancer from my soul.

Posted by tz on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:55 PM (EDT):

Both being quarrelsome and despair are sins, the latter can rise to be a sin against the holy spirit.

Jesus is in control. If they are truly followers, let the Shepherd deal with them. If they are not followers, you have no authority. Remember how he dealt and deals with your foolishness.

Look within, and become a saint. Then he can act and repair or fix every problem.

You are not the gleaming, glean, polished kettle. Admonish the pot as is charitable and prudent, but do not forget.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:49 PM (EDT):

Way back when, there was this group of super quarrelsome Catholics that would argue over everything. If you were on the wrong side of the argument you got labeled a heretic and were excommunicated. Who were those guys again? Oh yeah…THE CHURCH FATHERS!

I seem to remember some super quarrelsome Catholic later on in history called Friar Girolamo Savonarola. He even argued with the pope! When he refused to shut-up the authorities took care of him. They tortured, hanged, AND burned him at the same time (according to Wikipedia). Apparently he was so annoying that only one form of torture/execution was not enough.

Kinda of makes the ‘whaa you said I was wrong!’ and ‘boo hoo you don’t think like I do’ on the internet seem pathetic. It’s like that old saying, “Those who don’t know history are bound to whine about the present.”

Posted by Pete on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 8:45 PM (EDT):

THIS is great!
“Hug your local parish close and get to know the people there. They are your lifeline to the Church as Christ intended it in all its fleshy incarnate reality.”

Fleshy incarnate reality. Perfect description! Love it! Thank you!

Posted by WSquared on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 8:12 PM (EDT):

” “I told he was lying with that whole mea culpa thing! He’ll never change. He has no intention of changing.”“
.
Here’s the thing: and we know this… how?
.
” I. like you and anybody, face a straightforward temptation: I can’t stand the people I can’t stand. Emotionally, I cannot find a single thread of connection to them.”
.
It’s important for us to voice this temptation, and then ask for the grace to combat it in a way that’s holy and pleasing in the Lord’s sight. A lot of the times, we tend to more frustrated at ourselves for not knowing how to respond charitably to someone else’s bad behavior, often thinking that when the Lord asks us to “turn the other cheek,” He is asking us to be a doormat. But He’s not.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 8:07 PM (EDT):

Yeah right. Big words from a guy who routinely deletes every post that dares to call into question the superior superiority of his superiorness.

The problem isn’t that Catholics verbally knife each other at the drop of a hat, because generally they don’t. The problem is that self-righteous know-it-alls can’t stand criticism. They mistaken innocent snow-ball fights and verbal cream-pies with declarations of war and scream ‘ill-will!’ to fend off the verbal pin-pricks that threaten to pop their bloated egos.

The little boy crying like his lost balloon is a tragedy on par with the Hindenburg is not to be indulged. And it has nothing to do with his religion.

Posted by anna lisa on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 7:39 PM (EDT):

What is liberating is to love the traditions of the church in a proper way, while happily trusting that the Holy Spirit is guiding His bride into the future. Being angry, suspicious and melancholy about the present is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Love, optimism and generous service to our neighbor IS. Complaining gets in the way of that tangible, fruitful service (and perhaps is a smokescreen, to delay getting into the trenches…?) Who could possibly sweat over an altar girl wearing tennis shoes, when they have just uttered “amen!”—and the creator of the cosmos, is placed in their stunned hands? To actually be distracted by such a trivial detail as footwear is to somehow deny the reality of the true presence. Now *that* is a scandal.

Posted by Robert A.Rowland on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 6:50 PM (EDT):

I GRIEVE FOR THE CHURCH I KNEW

I grieve for the church I once knew before Vatican II,
when the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was true.
Evangelization was at the greatest peak ever.
Thanks mostly to Fulton J. Sheen’s most ardent endeavor.

The Holy Eucharist was kept in consecrated hands.
The divine nature of Jesus engendered these demands.
Familiarity led to contempt and rejection.
Indifference at Mass has now become an infection.

Mary was given the power to crush the serpent’s head.
Now her Son, Jesus has been given the mission instead
Downgrading the Mother of God is unpardonable.
God sends everything through hands that are fully capable.

Evangelizing was almost slain by ecumenism.
Without doctrine, three generations almost faced schism.
Courage of Humanae Vitae saved the Church from reverse.
Without it, errors of marriage and life would be perverse.

What must we do to again get Catholics back on track?
We must work to get firm belief in the real presence back.
The debacle in our nation by apostates must end.
Getting back what our founders intended must be the trend.

Bob Rowland
VI/XXII/MMXIV

Posted by Humble Pie Guy on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 6:42 PM (EDT):

p.s. I just read in National Geographic that the entire population of the world today makes up only 7 percent of the total population of the world from all of human history. So what? Well, this was a reminder to me that the vast majority of the Church is made up of souls already in Heaven, loving us as we struggle like ants down here on earth, praying for us and making up for our abysmal lack of love and mercy through their infinite sharing in His!

Posted by Humble Pie Guy on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 6:38 PM (EDT):

Today at Mass a very humble and saintly young priest gave this advice, I simply pass it on.

“When we are tempted to hate someone or lash out at them or simply think ill of them, rather than this, offer them to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and let Him heal them, and you, as only He can.”

Earlier he also mentioned how Our Lady was/is always on the offensive. What he meant was that she was always radiating God’s mercy to others, that she was/ is always blessing others, from the Visitation to Calvary to Fatima.

I hope this helps; it helped me and certainly ties in to what Mark is writing so clearly about.

Posted by B lewus on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 6:27 PM (EDT):

Gosh, if only those mean old Trads would stop whining and just enjoy the clown masses, lesbo nuns, liturgical dancing, communion in the law, Klingon-language prayers, altar girls in tennis shoes, and (coming soon) communion for divorced men who have remarried other men! Then we could truly celebrate the Spirit of Vatican II, which has done soooooo much good fir the Church in terms of mass attendance, reverence for the Eucharist, and vocations. After all, didn’t The Lord say they would know us by how nice we are to one another?

For ever Saint Nicholas of Myra delivering a righteous fist to the face of a heresiarch, there are five hundred Age of Aquarius Catholics telling him to “treat Arius with respect!”

Posted by Rick on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 6:09 PM (EDT):

Joe, why did you post the idiotic comment by Paul Broun? Just to show how some people will abuse power and make stupid statements just to appeal to the worst?

Posted by anna lisa on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:57 PM (EDT):

The internet gives me heartburn all the time. So why do I keep coming back? For the same reason that I want to turn it off. It has helped me to understand things about human beings, that I could only grasp by reading com boxes. There is such glory and misery to be found there.
.
This puts into words what had been an uneasy hunch, that I couldn’t articulate:
.
“...we love to press Important Things into the service of ego. And God, money, power, pleasure and honor are the Big Five idols. Yes, God can be an idol when our egos get hold of him. Merely because God is the proper object of worship while the other four are idols does not in the slightest mean that God and the things of God can’t be, paradoxically, idols too. People press gang God (or rather a fictional dummy they’ve labeled “God”) into the service of the other four idols every day.”
.
I would imagine that the people who do this, would be utterly shocked if they knew the truth about their golden calf. If there was a single question that could identify who these practitioners of this strange religion (they call Catholicism) is, I have a hunch it would be an affirmative answer to: “do you believe the majority of human beings are damned?”

Posted by Kevin Tierney on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:40 PM (EDT):

The reason we haven’t seen much progress I submit is that in the blogosphere and other online forums, people normally filter themselves into various camps. And those camps are “protected” by the gatekeepers, who tell you what everyone outside the tribe is thinking. Not surprisingly, things get lost in translation, or said gatekeeper really had no clue what the heck they were talking about.

Here’s a question: For bloggers who frequently get angry over what some internet trad says, how often do they have contacts with the rank and file traditionalists in the parishes? How often do they visit their socials? The same with vice versa. The blogosphere isn’t representative of what the church actually looks like, and I think that’s a huge problem. There’s little ideological diversity (I’m not talking womens priests, but legit topics of disagreement) amongst the writers, and neither is there really much amongst their readers. More often than not, it’s bravely facing the threat of your ears hurting from all the amens being screamed your way.

It’s real easy to run down a group that is more or less an abstract. Yet when I speak about the Charismatic Renewal, I have to remember that for all my criticisms of the group, I share beers with its members, they helped instruct me and my wife, and some of their writers have profoundly influenced the way I talk about the crisis in the Church. The only way to develop this kind of introspection is to just go out and do it. Pope Francis speaks of the need for us to “give up our membership card.” I think the blogosphere should lead in front on that.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:25 PM (EDT):

Fr. Denis, you are right, “This person is… a person,” but is he/she a “wheat” person or a “weed” person? What impact is that person having on others? Is their collective impact affecting the nation? Do you preach to reach the weed people in an effort to save them? Or do you preach “Kum Ba Yah?” I don’t hear preaching and teaching that’s going to save the weed people among us. How do I know there are weeds among the wheat? Jesus said so. And you can see a lot of them, they’re proud of it. In fact they feel morally superior to those other people. Just ask them; they’ll tell you – “My caring for people doesn’t stop at birth.” Now how or where would a Mass-attending, Communion receiving Catholic get that idea? I’ll tell you where; Joseph Cardinal Bernardin in his December 6, 1983 Cannon Lecture address entitled, “A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic-Dialogue” at Fordham University:

“The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the relationship between the ‘right to life’ and the ‘quality of life’ issues. I must confess that I think the relationship of these categories is inadequately understood in the Catholic community itself. My point is that the Catholics position on abortion demands of us and of society that we seek to influence an heroic social ethic.”

“If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.”

There it is – equating intrinsic evil acts with prudential judgment acts, promoted and approved by probably the most influential Catholic clergyman in the United States in the 1980s. As the Chairman of the Pro-Life Committee of the National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), the most important committee of the NCCB, Cardinal Bernardin worked to get his idea of expanding the pro-life movement to include the equalization of importance of so called “social justice” issues, approved by the NCCB. He succeeded in getting his “consistent ethic of life” adopted as a Church teaching in 1984, much to the delight of the liberal media and Roman Catholics, not only in the heavily Democratic Party Archdiocese of Chicago, but across the country.

What are the fruits of the bishops’ “consistent ethic of life” 30 years later? About 40,000,000 more murdered babies; millions more women living with the guilt with Satan whispering in their minds, “God can never forgive you now for what you have done;” a more solidified pro-abortion Democratic Party and a more outspoken Catholic pro-abortion Democrat leadership contingency leading the attack against any judge nominated to the Supreme Court suspected of possibly supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade; the successful attacks on God’s second greatest gift - the sanctity of marriage - with so called “same sex ‘marriage,’” now legal in 17 states; the attack on our Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion; and the direct attack on the Catholic Church’s beliefs on birth control; all of which made possible by the tens of millions of Catholics that have been apparently absolved by the bishops of any error in judgment enabling them to remain in and support the anti-God Democratic Party. And not a word to those “weeds” of the danger they are in, remaining on the “left side of Jesus” when he returns to judge the nations; and you know where that side is going. Meanwhile, collegiality is more important to the Church in the U.S. than seeking out the lost sheep.

Pope Francis has no problem excommunication, he excommunicated an entire Italian mafia recently; can the U.S. bishops excommunicate the Democratic Party?

Posted by St Donatus on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:01 PM (EDT):

I read a lot of blogs and enjoy them. There are times when things can upset me and sadly, being an anonymous way of venting, I have myself said things out of anger.

Later I realize that I don’t even believe what I said. I think most times that is the case with most of these ‘battles’ in the blogesphere. Of course, it also draws extremists who will pick a fight with anyone. Sadly, extremist exist on both sides of the Catholic spectrum, neither showing Christian charity. At the same time, Jesus also would speak his mind. He was the one who called the Pharisees vipers and hell bound. That doesn’t sound like soft language. Perhaps he felt they needed the shock treatment.

I also understand where a lot of the anger come from. Like those who have seen children leave the Church due to some non-believing theologian at a Catholic college they pay top dollar to send them to. Others feel abandoned by the Church because they can’t take communion (Divorced and remarried). Both may have had extenuating circumstances that effected the outcome.

Anyway, I have heard a lot lately about some who have gone over the top. We would all do well to practice Christian Charity even on this faceless media.

Posted by johnnyc on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 4:12 PM (EDT):

Steve D wrote…..Then swallow your own medicine Shea, get off the internet, stop blogging, facebooking or whatever and get busy with what you’re supposed to be doing, You, Mark Shea, are one of the primary causes of creating anger and division among Catholics online, but your massive ego prohibits you from admitting this.

Steve D I wouldn’t go that far. Mr. Shea’s blog has many prayer requests and I do appreciate when he links to his earlier apologetic writings. I will say that I find it odd that a ‘long time reader’ of Mr. Shea’s blog doesn’t know that he addresses this issue. Mr. Shea writes quite often about this issue either directly or indirectly as you allude to.

Posted by Joe on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 2:56 PM (EDT):

“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell! It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”

Wow, Steve D., you couldn’t have made Mark’s point more clearly for him if you tried. Judgemental, unforgiving, merciless. You make a wonderful Pharisee. Just out of curiousity, what’s your favorite sin that Mark has so offended you by condemning? Torture? Lying in a futile effort to stop abortions? Ultra-traditionalism? Do you figure Mark has already used up his 70 times 7 chances for forgiveness, or do you just reject Jesus’s command on that issue? Much like perhaps you have rejected the Church’s teaching on one or more of the above issues.

Posted by Bibbit on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 1:44 PM (EDT):

Steve D. said:
“Then swallow your own medicine Shea, get off the internet, stop blogging, facebooking or whatever and get busy with what you’re supposed to be doing, You, Mark Shea, are one of the primary causes of creating anger and division among Catholics online, but your massive ego prohibits you from admitting this.”

Wow, somebody didn’t read the article. Check out the second sentence AFTER the email at the top. That would be the second sentence that Mr. Shea himself wrote.
“I hear you. And I am, I think, often part of the problem. So mea culpa for that.”

Posted by Bill on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 1:34 PM (EDT):

A lot of the commenters in the combox really have no sense of irony at all.

Posted by me on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 1:17 PM (EDT):

Fr. Denis Lemieux, you nailed it, every word. Especially your last line-“And then we can try to talk about our disagreements…” That seems to be a lost art these days, actually having a conversation where we might be open to the fact that God loves the other person too.

Posted by Steve D. on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 12:41 PM (EDT):

Mscracker,
Sure, charity is key. Who can argue with that? I’m sure even Obama has profound things to say. Just don’t be a fool and fall for his shtick.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 12:22 PM (EDT):

Steve D.,
I’ve had occasion to listen to Mr. Shea on the radio & have really been blessed.He has some profound things to say.
Charity is key.Blogs & their comments are what we make them.

Posted by Steve D. on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 12:14 PM (EDT):

Shea sez: “Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are as traditional as it gets. And they help the Church. The sin of anger does not help the Church.”

Then swallow your own medicine Shea, get off the internet, stop blogging, facebooking or whatever and get busy with what you’re supposed to be doing, You, Mark Shea, are one of the primary causes of creating anger and division among Catholics online, but your massive ego prohibits you from admitting this. It’s just a shame that formerly reliable sources such as this newspaper have given a voice to your bomb-throwing ways. You claim you really want to change, but it doesn’t look like it from here.

Posted by George on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:55 AM (EDT):

The comments here are a great example of ‘temptation to despair.’ Did anybody actually read this piece with an open heart? Two comments down, this devolved into exactly what the author is complaining about.

Last January, I took a 5 month break from Catholic blogs and internet news. I was much better off, and my general mood and demeanor and faith life has been affected negatively since I started reading Catholic internet pieces again.

I really want to be able to read the Catholic internet, and use it to increase my faith. But I am starting to feel like it just is not possible.

Posted by Bert on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:26 AM (EDT):

@Sean: What do you mean by “All is permissible”? “All is forgivable”: I’m not sure how Mt 18: 6 fits in with that (“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”).

Posted by Bibbit on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 11:22 AM (EDT):

I think a big part of this has to do with folks not trusting Jesus and the Spirit to watch over and guide the Church. Many think only they can elect the proper pope, not others who claim to be guided by the Spirit. And another big part is those who believe what Jesus taught was only for His time on Earth, not for today. They seem to think He said something akin to “Pass on what you have learned from Me for a while, and then new generations will find their own truth.” The first group gets active when times are tough for the Church. The second group gets active when times are tough for them, such as when hey find out that something they want to do is wrong and not approved of by the Church.

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 10:58 AM (EDT):

Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are as traditional as it gets. And they help the Church. The sin of anger does not help the Church.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:33 AM (EDT):

JohnN ,
You know relevancy, per the standards of current culture, doesn’t impact truth.
Sure, I think contraception is hugely important in the way it’s impacted society for the worse. But the way some folks debate the issue is non-productive & certainly convinces noone.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:28 AM (EDT):

Let no one deceive you; to deny the personhood of the son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb, and/or to reorder man as an object of sexual desire/orientation, - to deny the inherent Dignity of the human person, who, from the moment of conception, has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter, is to deny God, and makes one an apostate to our Catholic Faith.

Posted by Nancy D. on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:15 AM (EDT):

There is no division in The Body of Christ; if it appears that there is division in The Body of Christ, it is merely an illusion, formed by those who believe one can be for Christ and anti Christ, simultaneously. It is this illusion, which is not grounded in reality, that has led to a Great Falling Away.

Posted by Fr. Denis Lemieux on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 9:01 AM (EDT):

My own primary effort in this area is to not divide human beings in general, and Catholics in the Church, into ‘groups’ in my mind. People sort themselves out into groups and factions, and I can’t stop them, but in my own mind and heart, the battle is lost once I think of ‘this person’ as a ‘Liberal’ or ‘Conservative’ or ‘Trad’ or ‘ATHEISTCOMMIESCUMBAGABORTIONISTAGGGGGHHHH’.
Uh, no. This person is… a person. Factional identifications or even habitual sins do not define us. And I think we get a lot closer to living the commandment of love in our on-line interactions if we start, stay, and stop with this person being a person, flesh and blood, God’s image, redeemed by the blood of Christ - all that good stuff. And then we can try to talk about our disagreements…

Posted by johnnyc on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 7:55 AM (EDT):

We are told by some Catholics that protestants are our brothers and sisters almost to a point where you wonder if they need to be evangelized at all yet when it comes to the SSPX and sedes who are also protestants, ecumenism goes out the window. Btw I thought the FSSP were fully in line with Catholic teaching? Unless the OP’s intent was to rip all traditionalists which, unfortunately, is far too much the case. Until we admit that there is rancor on both sides, until we see that the current state of the Catholic Church is rooted in the time after Vatican II where liberals did much damage, and continue to do much damage, to the Church in the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II then I think we will continue to go along as we have been unfortunately.

Posted by Benedetti on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 7:54 AM (EDT):

That depends on how you define tradition, Sean. Tradition as defined by some traditionalists is so cramped it is pathological and deserves condemnation. Long Live Pope Francis!

Posted by JohnN on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 7:44 AM (EDT):

But do we not also face the issue that some Church teaching, such as he ban on contraception, has become irrelevant even to most Catholics. When that happens the defense of such ‘rules” becomes the turf/battle for only the most fervent. That is when the nastiness starts.

Posted by Sean on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 7:25 AM (EDT):

All is permissible, all is forgivable except tradition and traditionalists.

Posted by robert waligora on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:42 AM (EDT):

i’ll continue my rant from my above post…in this era of political correctness, a word made up in hell to silence Truth,much damage is being done because of P.C…last years Pope Francis and the “Who am I to judge” quote along with Cardinal Dolan and his “Bravo” line.. quotes which I believe has caused much damage in correcting someone, sinners all over the internet rise up and if you correct them in accordance with Church Teaching you are labeled a bully and intolerant!..as I said earlier the early Apostles and Disciples would be aghast as to the toleration of sin in todays world in the fear of being offensive to someone!

Posted by kohkis on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 5:29 AM (EDT):

Thank you for this beautiful, funny and insightful article. :) Definitely a lot of wisdom here, I hope I’ll be able to remember it as I struggle through this life. Wishing strenght and hope to everybody dealing with these temptations!

Posted by robert waligora on Monday, Jun 23, 2014 4:28 AM (EDT):

looks to me like the early apostles and disciples should have just went along to get along rather than sacrificing their very lives…let everyone believe what they want after all Jesus understands. The Church is in the shape its in because of a lack of backbone by Shepherds for the last 50 years. But why should I care or worry or argue with someone about right or wrong or Truth! Just reading pro choice and pro gay marriage catholic repliers in a Catholic newspaper is enough to see the writing on the wall!...after all if God has let abortion and lately same-sex depravity run rampant in society and in the Church for 50 years why should I care…God sure doesn’t seem to see any problems, so I guess the problem is my own mind!

“Was the Latin Mass crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Vatican II?”
Haha love it. That line is a keeper (so is that rainbow-cake article lol). Thanks, friend, I needed the laugh & the general sensible advice of how we must still constantly remember about repentance even on the Internet & letting His voice (not mine) shine through in the comboxes. Too many screaming voices (including mine) in the comboxes sometimes. Humility is good.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.